Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7401072" data-attributes="member: 7006">Had there not been a Sorcerer or Warlock it wouldn't have bothered me overmuch.&nbsp; In fact, had Mike &amp; Co. decided that 5E was to have been only the Basic Rules, that probably wouldn't have bothered me overmuch either.&nbsp; What I'd probably end having done is played the Basic Rules, and then if I felt my game could use a little more, I'd probably have just created my own additional races, backgrounds, and/or subclasses myself.Because I don't need a paladin (for example).&nbsp; When people say they'd want the paladin removed because &quot;you can just play a fighter/cleric multiclass&quot;... I don't necessarily disagree.&nbsp; But the reason to have a paladin class is because it gives new and different mechanics than what you get as a fighter/cleric.&nbsp; Which is fine.&nbsp; Having some additional mechanics beyond the Basic Rules doesn't bother me, so the fact they went up to twelve classes in the PH doesn't bother me either.&nbsp; And if/when they decide to add one or two more-- the mystic, the artificer-- that's cool.&nbsp; At least those two have a legitimate story to them and their stories are grand enough than they CAN support multiple sub-classes (so in that regard, I think them being full classes are fine.)&nbsp; But I just don't want to see a proliferation a la 3E (especially when you bring prestige classes into the picture) because they don't tend to be used because their stories warrant it.&nbsp; So if there's no story reason for them to exist... I don't think they should be made just because, and they usually don't get supported in the long run.There's a reason why the &quot;arcane warrior&quot; half-caster has never gained much traction like the divine half-caster (paladin) and primal half-caster (ranger) have.&nbsp; Despite the dozens of attempts people have made to create one.&nbsp; Because none of them have a compelling story reason for who they are, what they do, and their reason for existence.&nbsp; If you try and create a arcane half-caster, you need to give a raison d'etre for what it is that doesn't include the phrase &quot;a warrior who casts wizard spells&quot;.&nbsp; That's not a story.&nbsp; That's game mechanics.&nbsp; And thus no one has any reason to care about it in the long run.&nbsp; The paladin?&nbsp; You can explain what a paladin is and what they do without making reference to being a warrior and that it casts divine spells. Same thing with the ranger and being a warrior that casts &quot;nature magic&quot;.&nbsp; But no arcane half-caster story has ever been compelling enough on its own that one has ever caught on.&nbsp; Even the swordmages, bladesingers, and eldritch knights of the world have to use &quot;warrior who supplements their skill with magical spells&quot; as their story, and that's why they are just minor sub-classes (or no longer even exist in 5E.)So from the very beginning I've never had issue with WotC only releasing books every six months, and the player-option ones even less frequently.&nbsp; And why I just rolled my eyes whenever anyone would say they &quot;had&quot; to have more options, and that some would even go so far as to threaten to stop playing D&amp;D if WotC didn't speed up their process.&nbsp; Because that was such a lame threat that no one would or should care to take it&nbsp; seriously, and if that person even did cut off their nose to spite their face... too bad, so sad, bye bye.&nbsp; LOL!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7401072, member: 7006"] Had there not been a Sorcerer or Warlock it wouldn't have bothered me overmuch. In fact, had Mike & Co. decided that 5E was to have been only the Basic Rules, that probably wouldn't have bothered me overmuch either. What I'd probably end having done is played the Basic Rules, and then if I felt my game could use a little more, I'd probably have just created my own additional races, backgrounds, and/or subclasses myself. Because I don't [I]need[/I] a paladin (for example). When people say they'd want the paladin removed because "you can just play a fighter/cleric multiclass"... I don't necessarily disagree. But the reason to have a paladin class is because it gives new and different mechanics than what you get as a fighter/cleric. Which is fine. Having some additional mechanics beyond the Basic Rules doesn't bother me, so the fact they went up to twelve classes in the PH doesn't bother me either. And if/when they decide to add one or two more-- the mystic, the artificer-- that's cool. At least those two have a legitimate story to them and their stories are grand enough than they CAN support multiple sub-classes (so in that regard, I think them being full classes are fine.) But I just don't want to see a proliferation a la 3E (especially when you bring prestige classes into the picture) because they don't tend to be used because their stories warrant it. So if there's no story reason for them to exist... I don't think they should be made just because, and they usually don't get supported in the long run. There's a reason why the "arcane warrior" half-caster has never gained much traction like the divine half-caster (paladin) and primal half-caster (ranger) have. Despite the [I]dozens[/I] of attempts people have made to create one. Because none of them have a compelling [B]story reason[/B] for who they are, what they do, and their reason for existence. If you try and create a arcane half-caster, you need to give a raison d'etre for what it is that doesn't include the phrase "a warrior who casts wizard spells". That's not a story. That's game mechanics. And thus no one has any reason to care about it in the long run. The paladin? You can explain what a paladin is and what they do [I]without[/I] making reference to being a warrior and that it casts divine spells. Same thing with the ranger and being a warrior that casts "nature magic". But no arcane half-caster story has ever been compelling enough on its own that one has ever caught on. Even the swordmages, bladesingers, and eldritch knights of the world have to use "warrior who supplements their skill with magical spells" as their story, and that's why they are just minor sub-classes (or no longer even exist in 5E.) So from the very beginning I've never had issue with WotC only releasing books every six months, and the player-option ones even less frequently. And why I just rolled my eyes whenever anyone would say they "had" to have more options, and that some would even go so far as to threaten to stop playing D&D if WotC didn't speed up their process. Because that was such a lame threat that no one would or should care to take it seriously, and if that person even did cut off their nose to spite their face... too bad, so sad, bye bye. LOL! [/QUOTE]

Verification