Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7862541" data-attributes="member: 57112">A very important part of 5e class design (and how they arguably missed as bad as they did with the original Fighter) is that classes shouldn't be designed around a specific gameplay niche but rather a concept within the world. Despite being the weakest classes, conceptually, a Rogue and a Fighter are still conceptually different from each other in a way a &quot;spell-less Ranger&quot; or a &quot;Warlord&quot; are not. 4e's Ranger was the most conceptually confused version of the class in its history, which is a high damn bar to clear. 4e Ranger was basically &quot;Nature Rogue, but different, we guess?&quot; and the Warlord was &quot;a Fighter, but as a Leader instead of a Defender.&quot; Their design was to fill mechanical gaps (or in the case of the Ranger, &quot;I guess we'd rather have two Martial Strikers than two Nature Strikers?&quot;) This goes for the &quot;Shaman&quot; too. You don't need a class to tell you can play a warlord or a shaman; you can build those characters still in 5e. They might not match up, mechanically, with what classes using those names have done in the past, but again, a 5e class needs more than separate mechanics to justify their existence. One can argue with whether not that should be true, and there are certainly good arguments to be made there. But as far as 5e is concerned, that ship has sailed.Psionics are conceptually different from other classes in spite of being easy to enough to mechanically represent as subclasses through different races, which is why I think that a Psion should be next.But then, I'm still a bit bummed that one of my favorite 3.5 niche classes got turned into a single, extremely high-level subclass abilities, so I can understand wanting my favorite mechanics back.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7862541, member: 57112"] A very important part of 5e class design (and how they arguably missed as bad as they did with the original Fighter) is that classes shouldn't be designed around a specific gameplay niche but rather a concept within the world. Despite being the weakest classes, conceptually, a Rogue and a Fighter are still conceptually different from each other in a way a "spell-less Ranger" or a "Warlord" are not. 4e's Ranger was the most conceptually confused version of the class in its history, which is a high damn bar to clear. 4e Ranger was basically "Nature Rogue, but different, we guess?" and the Warlord was "a Fighter, but as a Leader instead of a Defender." Their design was to fill mechanical gaps (or in the case of the Ranger, "I guess we'd rather have two Martial Strikers than two Nature Strikers?") This goes for the "Shaman" too. You don't need a class to tell you can play a warlord or a shaman; you can build those characters still in 5e. They might not match up, [I]mechanically[/I], with what classes using those names have done in the past, but again, a 5e class needs more than separate mechanics to justify their existence. One can argue with whether not that should be true, and there are certainly good arguments to be made there. But as far as 5e is concerned, that ship has sailed. Psionics are conceptually different from other classes in spite of being easy to enough to [I]mechanically [/I]represent as subclasses through different races, which is why I think that a Psion should be next. But then, I'm still a bit bummed that one of my favorite 3.5 niche classes got turned into a single, extremely high-level subclass abilities, so I can understand wanting my favorite mechanics back. [/QUOTE]

Verification