Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 4030553" data-attributes="member: 1106">It's not that they should fit those archetypes, just that they provide a baseline from which you can depart.  If you're not a very creative type, the concept of "wizard" is enough for others to get a handle on what your character is about.  It's a very powerful feature of D&D, IMO, and making classes just ability packages squanders this.  At least, it's unwise to do it in the core, IMO....there's scope for such stuff when it's more optional.Classes without archetypes need a rethink when it comes to the core game, IMO.  I mean, I can create a "class" called Rockwarden, with all these powers to do with rocks (sculpting, walking into rock, etc.) but such a class is perhaps inappropriate for the core game because the concept is somewhat arbitrary, and the name contrived.  It's not a concept for every world, because there's no solid archetype there.  If Rockwardens made it into the PHB1, and not Skulldiggers (with abilities related to skullduggery), Haberdashers and Guttersnipes, then people would have a right to ask why.  The Warlord is, to me, just as arbitrary, baseless and contrived, because of the lack of relevant archetype.The "warlord", as just a package of combat aid abilities, should IMO be stripped of any pretension of being a class and just become a package of abilities, feats and stuff.  Or get subsumed into a class that actually has an archetype.Which just happens to be the topic of this thread.</blockquote>

Verification