Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CreamCloud0" data-source="post: 9014617" data-attributes="member: 7034710">i think new classes are important, not just 'new classes for the sake of new classes' but sometimes you need a dedicated base for certain mechanics that was actually designed to support them and has room for going into details, like the 'pet'/summoner archtype which really can't be done justice with just a handfull of scattered subclasses all individually trying to figure out how to make themselves work off their respective base class's mechanics.as for new classes i think the ones i'd really like to see rounding out the roster that i can think of right now would be warlord, swordmage, pet/summoner and the psion.on the wizard vs sorcerer conversation. the sorcerer i'm happy with, i think it should be the arcane blaster caster, on the other hand the wizard is an unfocused overpowered mess, it's only been expanded and needs to be narrowed in on an actual concept, so IMO strip wizard of a significant portion of anything that's not it's basic utility and support spells then repackage the spells what you took away back into it as distinct subclass' expanded spell lists, not the spell school subclasses but actual thematic wizard archtypes, necromancer, elementalist, diviner, binder, abjurer, enchanter(okay yes these two are still technically based on spell schools but they also have their own thematic cores), where the necromancer gets summon undead, ray of sickness and speak with dead, elemenatalist getting wall of fire, sleet storm and chromatic orb, the diviner getting divination spells, the binder gets trapping and disabling spells and you get the picture here, not just 'i'm a necromancer because i picked slightly more necromancy spells than the average wizard alongside the standard fireball, fly and counterspell'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CreamCloud0, post: 9014617, member: 7034710"] i think new classes are important, not just 'new classes for the sake of new classes' but sometimes you need a dedicated base for certain mechanics that was actually designed to support them and has room for going into details, like the 'pet'/summoner archtype which really can't be done justice with just a handfull of scattered subclasses all individually trying to figure out how to make themselves work off their respective base class's mechanics. as for new classes i think the ones i'd really like to see rounding out the roster that i can think of right now would be warlord, swordmage, pet/summoner and the psion. on the wizard vs sorcerer conversation. the sorcerer i'm happy with, i think it should be [I]the[/I] arcane blaster caster, on the other hand the wizard is an unfocused overpowered mess, it's only been expanded and needs to be narrowed in on an actual concept, so IMO strip wizard of a significant portion of anything that's not it's basic utility and support spells then repackage the spells what you took away back into it as distinct subclass' expanded spell lists, not the spell school subclasses but actual thematic wizard archtypes, necromancer, elementalist, diviner, binder, abjurer, enchanter(okay yes these two are still technically based on spell schools but they also have their own thematic cores), where the necromancer gets summon undead, ray of sickness and speak with dead, elemenatalist getting wall of fire, sleet storm and chromatic orb, the diviner getting divination spells, the binder gets trapping and disabling spells and you get the picture here, not just 'i'm a necromancer because i picked slightly more necromancy spells than the average wizard alongside the standard fireball, fly and counterspell' [/QUOTE]

Verification