Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8521196" data-attributes="member: 5142">While I would definitely make the case for the Psion or a Gish as a new class, there are also a number of fantasy archetypes in the game already that D&amp;D, IMHO, does poorly when it comes to matching some of the popular conceptions of the archetype (e.g., Necromancers, Summoners, Shamans/Animists, etc.). It would be nice if they could revisit and reevaluate how they approach these archetypes in a way that is more intuitive and functional within the system. That said, one of my gripes with 5e is that it does feel, much like with the 5e Druid, that WotC is trying to have their classes do too much. I would also almost prefer if D&amp;D went back to 4e style design when it comes to roles and powers - though maybe not be so transparent about it with their labels (e.g., primal defender, divine striker, etc.) - as I think that it permitted greater design space for archetypes. For example, having the Druid be a Primal Controller helped open up design space for a Shaman to be a Primal Leader. But is there now room in 5e D&amp;D for the Shaman if people will point to the Druid and say, &quot;just play the shepherd druid as a shaman&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 8521196, member: 5142"] While I would definitely make the case for the Psion or a Gish as a new class, there are also a number of fantasy archetypes in the game already that D&D, IMHO, does poorly when it comes to matching some of the popular conceptions of the archetype (e.g., Necromancers, Summoners, Shamans/Animists, etc.). It would be nice if they could revisit and reevaluate how they approach these archetypes in a way that is more intuitive and functional within the system. That said, one of my gripes with 5e is that it does feel, much like with the 5e Druid, that WotC is trying to have their classes do too much. I would also almost prefer if D&D went back to 4e style design when it comes to roles and powers - though maybe not be so transparent about it with their labels (e.g., primal defender, divine striker, etc.) - [I]as I think that it permitted greater design space for archetypes[/I]. For example, having the Druid be a Primal Controller helped open up design space for a Shaman to be a Primal Leader. But is there now room in 5e D&D for the Shaman if people will point to the Druid and say, "just play the shepherd druid as a shaman"? [/QUOTE]

Verification