Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7673925" data-attributes="member: 996">Rather, it implies that they deserve more.&nbsp; Well, not the arcane trickster, so much.&nbsp;It is when it's standing in for a full class not much like the parent class.&nbsp; Assassins and Illusionists are very much like their parent classes.&nbsp; Sorcerer is at least mechanically close to psionics in some ways, it's powers are in-born, it uses a point system (though not much like psionics used there's), but it's not as close as an Illusionist is to a Wizard. &nbsp;In a way, that's a lot of what 5e has been about.&nbsp; 5e has - more or less successfully - catered to a broad swath of D&amp;D fans, by appealing to and validating bits of their favorite editions, particularly classes.&nbsp; Most classes are strongly reminiscent of their 0e D&amp;D and 1e AD&amp;D roots - Clerics still heal &amp; turn undead, Wizards still cast sleep and look for spells to add to their books, etc.&nbsp; The Illusionist as sub-class evokes the 2e Illusionist as specialist wizard, the fighter's high DPR is evocative of it's role in 2e parties.&nbsp; The Rogue get's the 3.0 Rogue's combat boost from SA, the Sorcerer manages a little of the feel of the 3.0 original (in spite of it's spontaneous casting essentially being given to everyone), while the Bard is a generalist '5th wheel' full-caster as in 3.0, not the oddity it was in 1e.&nbsp; The Warlock is very much like the original 3.5 Warlock, and the EK &amp; AT sub-class were PrCs in the 3.5 DMG, but feat stands in rather poorly for the cool reach tricks you could do with a 3.x fighter.&nbsp; And, of course, psionics is notably absent...&nbsp;Hardly.&nbsp; The Bard is a spellcaster, the Warlord was martial.&nbsp; That's not even analogous to a psionc-sub-class of the Sorcerer being 'arcane not psionic,' that's like touting the GOO Warlock as all the psionics you'll ever need, because he has telepathy and is associated with the Far Realm.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7673925, member: 996"] Rather, it implies that they deserve more. Well, not the arcane trickster, so much. It is when it's standing in for a full class not much like the parent class. Assassins and Illusionists are very much like their parent classes. Sorcerer is at least mechanically close to psionics in some ways, it's powers are in-born, it uses a point system (though not much like psionics used there's), but it's not as close as an Illusionist is to a Wizard. In a way, that's a lot of what 5e has been about. 5e has - more or less successfully - catered to a broad swath of D&D fans, by appealing to and validating bits of their favorite editions, particularly classes. Most classes are strongly reminiscent of their 0e D&D and 1e AD&D roots - Clerics still heal & turn undead, Wizards still cast sleep and look for spells to add to their books, etc. The Illusionist as sub-class evokes the 2e Illusionist as specialist wizard, the fighter's high DPR is evocative of it's role in 2e parties. The Rogue get's the 3.0 Rogue's combat boost from SA, the Sorcerer manages a little of the feel of the 3.0 original (in spite of it's spontaneous casting essentially being given to everyone), while the Bard is a generalist '5th wheel' full-caster as in 3.0, not the oddity it was in 1e. The Warlock is very much like the original 3.5 Warlock, and the EK & AT sub-class were PrCs in the 3.5 DMG, but feat stands in rather poorly for the cool reach tricks you could do with a 3.x fighter. And, of course, psionics is notably absent... Hardly. The Bard is a spellcaster, the Warlord was martial. That's not even analogous to a psionc-sub-class of the Sorcerer being 'arcane not psionic,' that's like touting the GOO Warlock as all the psionics you'll ever need, because he has telepathy and is associated with the Far Realm. [/QUOTE]

Verification