Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jefe Bergenstein" data-source="post: 6606320" data-attributes="member: 31506">To my knowledge, the only one suggesting they anything more than a spell list and proficiency is you. The lack of armor/weapon proficiencies, skills, etc certainly IS a reason why wizard isn't the best fit, but its not the only one. Same as why we wouldn't make the fighter a rogue subclass (or vice versa). We've given several suggestions... Moreover, as I pointed out, 3 paltry class features of a subclass is insufficient design space. And when you're moving into alt classes, you may as well make a new class, particularly in regards to future proofing it from further wizard spell expansion.The ranger's schtick is pretty damn minimal over a fighter/druid muticlass. The paladin has smites to differentiate him from a fighter/cleric. So artificers get partial casting and infusions similar to a warlock's invocations, which can be at will spells in an item, long rest recharging gadgets, or always on modifiers to attacks, defenses or their pet. To me, that seems as viable a class feel as the ranger.</blockquote>