Paul Farquhar
Legend
Sometimes they forget their weapon too?a monk is more than a fighter without armour.

Sometimes they forget their weapon too?a monk is more than a fighter without armour.
I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.I would remove book pact stuff from warlock and give wizard more options to be a creepy occultist messing with forbidden spells.
Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.I would merge classes and add subclasses, moving some stuff from core class to subclass. Specifically, Barbarian is split between an "berserker" fighter subclass and "totem warrior" ranger subclass; sorcerer and warlock are merged; druid goes to nature cleric; and artificer and bard are folded into rogue (sneak attack becomes a subclass ability). Oh, and monk is axed.
You obviously missed the bit where I said "move some core class features into subclasses".Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.
Yep, that totally was my point...I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.
I am all for having wizards be bookish scholars. Where I take umbrage is when that is used to justify wizards having all the magical toys. If anything, I would focus/narrow wizards further down in terms of their spell access, though I doubt that would be popular. When devising their four spell lists for PF2, there was a lot of internal pushback within Paizo any time one of the designers proposed moving a wizard spell from the arcane spell list to a more thematically appropriate one.Yep, that totally was my point...
Wizard is so broad, that it is thematically somewhat weak. But they're the book guy. So let's focus on that. Wizard subclasses are incredibly meh. I want them to actually mean something. To me it is thematically confused if we have two separate classes whose thing is having a magical book.
My merging of sorcerer with warlock would aim to broaden the warlock too. The idea would be that we would have two relatively broad arcane casters, that would still feel mechanically and thematically distinct. Wizard, the intellectual caster who studies books and rituals, represented by being able to collect spells in their book. Warlock, the caster who possesses, or is imbued with, innate magical power represented by fast charging magic and always on magical effects.
I dont think so, no. We talking of a 1 minute effect per short rest?Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.
So you are moving class features to subclasses.You obviously missed the bit where I said "move some core class features into subclasses".
4e monk was quite viable, no?I'm not sure if I would axe them, but has D&D ever designed a mechanically viable monk?
Isn't this coming out for 5e...For specific setting and genres.
For example in my 5e conversion of Rokugan I made classes for Samurai, Shugenja and Courtier, which aren't needed in other settings
I am working on a point buy idea to allow just that. As some setting will allow characters to possess magic, while some would not.Ultimately I feel that a class system should have a limited number of broad and easily recognisable archetypes. I get the desire to have a huge number of varied characters, but I feel that is better served by a classless system that allows you to mix and match and build what you want more freely.
Some.So you are moving class features to subclasses.
Less duplication.What's the difference between that and having 2 separate classes?