Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6524672" data-attributes="member: 7635">Ok, lets look at your examples. Probably the more egregious: They REALLY needed an elementalist/arcanist bent sorcerer to go with Draconic and Wild. Something that is more "just here for the spellcasting" than for the wild surges or draconic power. I REALLY hope WotC puts one in Princes of the Apocalypse, but I'm not holding out hope....Evoker is pretty much the generalist now. Really, most generalist wizards 2e-3e era were just evokers who didn't want to give up access from X spell in Y school. They still learned magic missile, fireball, etc; but wanted to keep invisibility or dispel magic too. And generalist doesn't make much sense for powers: your either good at ALL spells (and thus OP to other schools) or you don't have anything special. I thought like you, but the lack of opposition schools makes generalist a pointless redundancy. 110% disagree. Before 2000 AD, THIEF was the name of the class and very much its niche. You could play a Thief like Indiana Jones, but he was never the iconic rogue. That said, in reverse, a treasure-hunter archetype (complete with whip proficiency) would be a nice addition, but THIEF IS THE GENERIC as it has for 30+ years. Life is painfully generic, right down to the iconic healing spells on the list and the nonsensical heavy-armor proficiency as a nod to AD&D clerics. Again, like wizard, a generic cleric is a cleric of... what? What is so generic that it can't be handled by another domain? Even if you wanted a monotheistic, Abrahamian-like religion, Life is generic enough to do that. I'd rather see specific entries (like elemental, darkness, or craft) over a generic "everything" cleric. "Generic" isn't the right term here: Iconic is. Berserker is the ICONIC barbarian because it does what you think the 3e/4e barbarian should without bells, whistles, or spells. Iconics aren't always generic either. The Open-hand monk is clearly the iconic monk, but its not a generic subclass suitable for any type of martial artist. While we're at it: Open Hand in iconic monk, Devotion is iconic paladin, Circle of the Land/Forest is iconic druid, Hunter is iconic ranger, Fiend-Pact is iconic warlock, and College of Lore is iconic bard. Each lines up with how they've traditionally been played or their classic lore, not now many types of archetypes it can catch. Very. The problem is low complexity =/= generic. There is no sublcass that makes the warlock easier to play, for example. Some classes dial up-down with complexity by subclass, but most do not; they are balanced against each other. In fact, the only four subclasses I'd say are "easy" are Champion, Life domain, Evoker, and Thief (and for the obvious reasons). I don't expect any sort of patch, other than a few new subclasses released (eventually) to add options (like an elementalist sorcerer). Its not needed.</blockquote>

Verification