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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6524839" data-attributes="member: 1465">No, I don't think Wizard needs a generalist, and that's exactly because without barred schools many of those subclasses can still be used to create a very versatile wizard.You are right that berserker is more iconic than generic, and now that I checked the Thief from Basic once again, I can say it's generic enough. As a matter of fact, it's more generic now than even, the only iconic thing it has is the Thief name but ALL the features do not imply any burglary or theft at all, only the name (which is why I said it was not generic, but now that I check it's really only by name...).But what are we discussing now? Iconic is not the same as generic. The thread is about genericity. They are all iconic, but they would be more generic if not every Druid automatically had wildshape, not every Barbarian automatically had rage, not every Ranger or Paladin automatically had spells, not every Rogue automatically had Sneak Attack, and not every Cleric automatically had Turn Undead. All of these are iconic things which not an irrelevant amount of people in the past have wished they were not forced on those classes, and during the playtest it was often suggested to tuck them into an iconic subclass exactly to keep the base class more generic.Yes, they are different things, the two could have also designed together, or not. The lack a low-complexity options (or equivalently you can say the minimum class complexity) for everyone except the Fighter is a separate problem. I just pointed out that they talked about this during the playtest, but didn't follow through after the Warrior/Champion.</blockquote>

Verification