NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7373749" data-attributes="member: 996">He's done his own, too, on DMsG.  Maybe he'd prefer people pick that up, instead of wait for an official one?  ;PAnd the Sorcerer, and Mystic...Really, 5e shows a lot of flexibility with regards to class designs.  They don't need to be fit to very specific qualifications or guidelines, there's no Role/Source no Groups no iconic roles, just try to do the concept justice, and include elements from past editions, so fans of it's past incarnations, even if they may have been pretty different, can all get something of what they want out of it.They've been more successful with some classes than others, of course.  The Ranger and Sorcerer, for instance, draw a lot of criticism.  I can't speak for ranger fans, but the Sorcerer is an interesting case.  In the playtest, they went back to the concept ("DRAGON MAGIC!" part of it, anyway) and came up with something new/unique - and the reception was mixed.  For the PH, it presented the Dragon and Wild (chaos) Sorcerer, so 4e fans should have recognized that and felt some familiarity.  And, it used elements - Spontaneous Casting and Meta-magic - lifted directly from 3.5, which, if all you had to do was port elements, should have pleased them, as well.  It didn't quite pull it off, though.  Because, while the Sorcerer did have spontaneous casting in 3.x, now, so did everyone else, including the Wizard it traditionally contrasted with.  And, while the 3.x Sorcerer was nominally dragon-blooded-magic, that wasn't built into it too strongly, it could be readily re-skinned, while the 5e sub-class approach has it more locked-in, re-skinnable, perhaps, as an elementalist of some type, but not much more.  And, of course, on top of that, the spell lists don't much support elementalists beyond fire, either.They seem to have learned from these difficulties with the design of the Mystic, and hopefully will continue to improve their process and get better at delivering on classes.    The thing about the Druid is that it hasn't varied much from it's original theme and presentation over the editions, it's just been (mostly) taken away from in some.  In 2e, the Druid's unique spell progression was taken away.  In 4e, nothing was exactly taken away, but it's major schticks were hard-divided among 3 different sub-classes, so you could play a druid that did some of what your favorite druid back in the day could, but not one specific druid that could all of it.  Of course, in 3.x, it became the D in CoDzilla, which was not great for either fans nor detractors of the class - much as CharOp might've loved alternately abusing and bitching about Natural Spell...In 5e, the Druid is back.  It ticks all it's traditional boxes and is good at all of them, but does so without breaking the spell progression formula of 5e (a direct port, with 3rd level spells at 3rd level would have been insane, since 5e normalized the meaning of spell levels - everyone casts the same spells at the same level).  It's a good example of very faithfully bringing a class into 5e, even while adapting it to 5e. So they Mystic is a pretty variable class... it's arguable 3 or 4 classes in one.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  But, yes, it's a much more daunting challenge than the Warlord.  Fans of the random-psionics/Psionicist/Psion/Psionics-Source necessarily have much more varied expectations and priorities.    Mearls may have the odd blindspot, and his style of design might not be to everyone's taste, but his love of the game and willingness to let us play in our own varied ways seems genuine enough.  At least give him the benefit of the doubt.   Or, he's taking such a slow and measured approach to avoid offending people who actually do feel that way - and have a track record of going to extremes when they imagine they've reason to be offended.  The BM could have been nothing but a roadblock to the Warlord, as you describe.  The fact we got limited-use short-rest-recharge maneuvers from the BM, then inferior martial healing and attack granting from the PDK, and now long-rest recharge gambits and better martial healing from this nominal 'warlord' (faux-fighter/warlord Multi-class), says otherwise, that the obviously-doomed attempts as fighter-sub-class warlords could represent a measured approach to slowing working in a controversial (only because h4ters make it so by being h4teful, obviously, but Mearls can't ignore their prejudices entirely, he must try to work around them) class.  If the sub-class he's working on here is very well-done, it could well be a reasonable step towards an adequate full class design.  At this rate, it likely won't see print until moments before a 6e goes into playtest, but even that'd be better than completely caving and ignoring that the warlord had ever existed (which is how it looked like it might have gone early in the playtest).</blockquote>

Verification