Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7371776" data-attributes="member: 996">That's yet another novel set of hypothetical bars to new classes.&nbsp; Only the 'lazy' build would have an issue with the first one.&nbsp;&nbsp; No class'd do really well on the second one, though I suppose the most versatile could just pick specialties arbitrarily and optimize, and those with more faux-MC sub-classes could lean on that to kinda 'cheat' their way through.What's funny is thinking about the Wizard and that first goal.&nbsp; A lone wizard, especially at low level, in the classic game would be tantamount to suicide.&nbsp; In 5e (oddly, in 4e, too), though, it's not particularly more so than for any other class.&nbsp; It really is quite remarkable how many of the limitations and weaknesses of that class have been removed, almost entirely, over the editions.&nbsp; There's a lot of pendulum-swinging in a lot of areas, but as far as making life easier on wizards, it's been steady.&nbsp;I can see how it'd make the fighter handle the second goal better, since it is, in essence, a faux-multi-class 'support' character, something the fighter would currently lack in the hypothetical all-fighter party.&nbsp;It's an issue with any support class, of course.&nbsp; And a joke in 4e circles, something about a party of leaders being &quot;all multiplier and no force.&quot;&nbsp;I think those goals are silly, but, sure, if the class were not ported directly from 4e still in the constrictive 'Leader' box, but allowed to cover more of the conceptual ground it implies - particularly into the 4e-'controller' realm, it could do very well.&nbsp; Similarly, a faux-MC sub-class or two would help with the second one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7371776, member: 996"] That's yet another novel set of hypothetical bars to new classes. Only the 'lazy' build would have an issue with the first one. No class'd do really well on the second one, though I suppose the most versatile could just pick specialties arbitrarily and optimize, and those with more faux-MC sub-classes could lean on that to kinda 'cheat' their way through. What's funny is thinking about the Wizard and that first goal. A lone wizard, especially at low level, in the classic game would be tantamount to suicide. In 5e (oddly, in 4e, too), though, it's not particularly more so than for any other class. It really is quite remarkable how many of the limitations and weaknesses of that class have been removed, almost entirely, over the editions. There's a lot of pendulum-swinging in a lot of areas, but as far as making life easier on wizards, it's been steady. I can see how it'd make the fighter handle the second goal better, since it is, in essence, a faux-multi-class 'support' character, something the fighter would currently lack in the hypothetical all-fighter party. It's an issue with any support class, of course. And a joke in 4e circles, something about a party of leaders being "all multiplier and no force." I think those goals are silly, but, sure, if the class were not ported directly from 4e still in the constrictive 'Leader' box, but allowed to cover more of the conceptual ground it implies - particularly into the 4e-'controller' realm, it could do very well. Similarly, a faux-MC sub-class or two would help with the second one. [/QUOTE]

Verification