Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9316933" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Unfortunately, the design of D&amp;D magic is working against you here. I've argued before that one of the greatest problems with D&amp;D magic is that it tries to cover the magic of too many classic narratives, and as a result it hoovers up all of their strengths and few to none of their weaknesses. This inclines &quot;magic&quot; to feeling like it should be able to capture All The Things, because its initial net was cast so widely. You and I both know that the only result from trying to do that is to create a broken game--unless you insert the wildly unpopular draconian costs/punishments for using magic, so folks just stop bothering with it at all, which isn't an improvement.It's not for nothing, incidentally, that in the original post where I articulated my 24 options, I split them into five that I think are shoe-ins (Warlord, Assassin, Swordmage, Shaman, Psion) and six that are varying degrees of less plausible. Those first four have all been outright classes or near-total class overhauls, to one extent or another, in multiple past editions of D&amp;D (Warlord 4e/Marshal 3.x, Assassin in 2e-4e, Swordmage 4e/Duskblade 3e/&quot;Elf&quot; 1e, Shaman 4e/multiple classes 3e/Priest kits in 2e, multiple 3e-4e classes/Psionicist 2e).I haven't even heard of the PF2e Elementalist, so I couldn't really comment. Perhaps there is more going on here. As noted above, things can change over time. The closest precursor I know of from PF1e, the Kineticist, was basically just &quot;monk, except with magic&quot; as I had understood it, which was a big part of my &quot;elementalist is a flavor that gets applied to lots of other classes&quot; conclusion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9316933, member: 6790260"] Unfortunately, the design of D&D magic is working against you here. I've argued before that one of the greatest problems with D&D magic is that it tries to cover the magic of too many classic narratives, and as a result it hoovers up all of their strengths and few to none of their weaknesses. This inclines "magic" to feeling like it [I]should[/I] be able to capture All The Things, because its initial net was cast so widely. You and I both know that the only result from trying to do that is to create a broken game--unless you insert the wildly unpopular draconian costs/punishments for using magic, so folks just stop bothering with it at all, which isn't an improvement. It's not for nothing, incidentally, that in the original post where I articulated my 24 options, I split them into five that I think are shoe-ins (Warlord, Assassin, Swordmage, Shaman, Psion) and six that are varying degrees of less plausible. Those first four have all been outright classes or near-total class overhauls, to one extent or another, in multiple past editions of D&D (Warlord 4e/Marshal 3.x, Assassin in 2e-4e, Swordmage 4e/Duskblade 3e/"Elf" 1e, Shaman 4e/multiple classes 3e/Priest kits in 2e, multiple 3e-4e classes/Psionicist 2e). I haven't even heard of the PF2e Elementalist, so I couldn't really comment. Perhaps there is more going on here. As noted above, things can change over time. The closest precursor I know of from PF1e, the Kineticist, was basically just "monk, except with magic" as I had understood it, which was a big part of my "elementalist is a flavor that gets applied to lots of other classes" conclusion. [/QUOTE]

Verification