Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7401085" data-attributes="member: 996">So, &quot;this far, but no further?&quot; I'm dubious.&nbsp;Actually I doubt the artificer could fill out a whole lotta sub-classes, even the gunman one seems a tad forced.&nbsp; They Mystic, OTOH, is going to be combining a half-dozen or so psionic classes from several past editions, so should have plenty to work with; the Warlord had 8 de-facto builds &amp; 28 Paragon Paths; the Shaman 5 &amp; 17 ... the Artificer was in Eberron in 3e &amp; 4e, the 4e version with only 3 builds &amp; 3 Paragon Paths, for comparison.&nbsp; Not that the Artificer shouldn't be a class, just that filling out a lot of sub-classes may not be its strongest suit.And, has been pointed out, some extant 5e PH classes have a paucity of plausible/distinctive (let alone 'grand') sub-class 'stories.'PrCs - OK, the 'better' ones, IMHO - certainly had story reasons to exist (unlike the MC-kludge PrCs, like the Mystic Theurge).&nbsp; The Purple Dragon Knight, for instance, was a position of renown linked to a specific part of the world, it'd've made a much better PrC than a sub-class, in 5e.&nbsp; But, PrCs'd've been best used in products like SCAG, that were setting-specific, and offered players tie-ins to said setting.&nbsp; Campaign doesn't have anything to do with Cormyr, no worries someone'd play a PDK just to freak the guy who can't grok martial healing.You mean much tractions as a full class.&nbsp; The classic elven fighter/magic-user has tremendous traction, it's present in 5e as not one but 2 sub-classes, and via MCing, and several feats and could be managed, nominally, by appending the soldier background to a wizard.&nbsp; It's pretty heavily supported.As for the poster boys for superfluous classes that could be better done via MCing, the Pally &amp; Ranger, they don't have traction, they have innertia.&nbsp; They'be been around since 0D&amp;D.&nbsp;Go for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7401085, member: 996"] So, "this far, but no further?" I'm dubious. Actually I doubt the artificer could fill out a whole lotta sub-classes, even the gunman one seems a tad forced. They Mystic, OTOH, is going to be combining a half-dozen or so psionic classes from several past editions, so should have plenty to work with; the Warlord had 8 de-facto builds & 28 Paragon Paths; the Shaman 5 & 17 ... the Artificer was in Eberron in 3e & 4e, the 4e version with only 3 builds & 3 Paragon Paths, for comparison. Not that the Artificer shouldn't be a class, just that filling out a lot of sub-classes may not be its strongest suit. And, has been pointed out, some extant 5e PH classes have a paucity of plausible/distinctive (let alone 'grand') sub-class 'stories.' PrCs - OK, the 'better' ones, IMHO - certainly had story reasons to exist (unlike the MC-kludge PrCs, like the Mystic Theurge). The Purple Dragon Knight, for instance, was a position of renown linked to a specific part of the world, it'd've made a much better PrC than a sub-class, in 5e. But, PrCs'd've been best used in products like SCAG, that were setting-specific, and offered players tie-ins to said setting. Campaign doesn't have anything to do with Cormyr, no worries someone'd play a PDK just to freak the guy who can't grok martial healing. You mean much tractions as a full class. The classic elven fighter/magic-user has tremendous traction, it's present in 5e as not one but 2 sub-classes, and via MCing, and several feats and could be managed, nominally, by appending the soldier background to a wizard. It's pretty heavily supported. As for the poster boys for superfluous classes that could be better done via MCing, the Pally & Ranger, they don't have traction, they have innertia. They'be been around since 0D&D. Go for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification