Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9057171" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Couldn't disagree more. "I give of myself, to replenish you" is peak Paladin. Of course, it only ever actually worked that way in 4e, but a man can dream.Really? I had always been under the impression that the 2014 smite spells were niche in most cases.What would be required for that, in your opinion? They seem reasonably Bard-y to me....what? Really? Okay I have to hear the justification for this one.What would be required for that, in your opinion? I do agree that a Primal Bard with a few nicked spells does not a Ranger make, but I am curious what you think would push a Bard over the line. E.g., I have previously proposed a "College ofOn this, at least, we're fully agreed.Seems to me they're waffling back and forth on that. For a while, it looked 100% like (regardless of how one may or may not feel about the label) a "3.5e revised" approach, very nearly same but not identical. With this packet, however, they're making moves that attempt to preserve the levels at which classes get their subclass features, other than normalizing many choices to level 3 (which I think is their likely-ineffectual attempt to tell people "START AT LEVEL 3 unless you explicitly want the experience of starting at level 1.") That seems to push it closer to Essentials, but it isn't really the same either. The "updated" versions are pretty clearly intended to truly replace the original PHB; it's not like the Knight (or any other Essentials subclass) which does not replace the Fighter (or any other "original" 4e class.) Making it easier or even seamless to use 2014 subclasses is nice, of course, but the kinds of changes they've implemented</blockquote>

Verification