Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9306564" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I've added a few that aren't on your list, but matter to me. Feel free to ignore them if you want a list without; I'll mark with asterisks.PaladinSummoner*SorcererWarlordAvenger*SwordmageShaman*Ninja (if distinct from Rogue)*WarlockMonkDruidBardRogueFighterClericPsion (and psionics in general)WizardArtificerThey were official in 4e, and had official equivalents (Marshal and Duskblade) in 3e. Both have pretty meaningful devoted fanbases that would like to see them given proper treatment as actual classes.More or less, think of their position like this: Imagine if there was no Wizard class, but there were still Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights, and someone tells you you should be happy to have not one but two Int-based spellcasting options. You would, I'd argue rightly, demand that a class that focuses on that Int-based spellcasting be included, that there's just not enough design space in the confined limits of a Fighter or Rogue subclass to truly articulate that theme.That's how such folks feel about Swordmage and Warlord. The &quot;Warlord Fighter&quot; is to a real Warlord class what the &quot;Wizard Fighter&quot; (Eldritch Knight) is to the real Wizard class. Likewise, a Swordmage class is not &quot;Eldritch Knight, redesigned.&quot; It's a class that marries warrior-stuff and spellcaster-stuff from the ground up, united, inseparable, indivisible. To do weapon drills IS to do spellcraft; to practice your spellwork IS to practice your bladework. You could no more separate a Swordmage's &quot;spellcasting&quot; from her &quot;martial prowess&quot; than you could separate a poet's &quot;vocabulary&quot; from his &quot;grammar&quot;--to use one skill in any functional way is to use the other skill, and vice-versa.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9306564, member: 6790260"] I've added a few that aren't on your list, but matter to me. Feel free to ignore them if you want a list without; I'll mark with asterisks. Paladin Summoner* Sorcerer Warlord Avenger* Swordmage Shaman* Ninja (if distinct from Rogue)* Warlock Monk Druid Bard Rogue Fighter Cleric Psion (and psionics in general) Wizard Artificer They were official in 4e, and had official equivalents (Marshal and Duskblade) in 3e. Both have pretty meaningful devoted fanbases that would like to see them given proper treatment as actual classes. More or less, think of their position like this: Imagine if there was no Wizard class, but there were still Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights, and someone tells you you should be happy to have not one but [I]two[/I] Int-based spellcasting options. You would, I'd argue rightly, demand that a class that [I]focuses[/I] on that Int-based spellcasting be included, that there's just not enough design space in the confined limits of a Fighter or Rogue subclass to truly articulate that theme. That's how such folks feel about Swordmage and Warlord. The "Warlord Fighter" is to a [I]real[/I] Warlord class what the "Wizard Fighter" (Eldritch Knight) is to the real Wizard class. Likewise, a Swordmage class is not "Eldritch Knight, redesigned." It's a class that marries warrior-stuff and spellcaster-stuff from the ground up, united, inseparable, indivisible. To do weapon drills IS to do spellcraft; to practice your spellwork IS to practice your bladework. You could no more separate a Swordmage's "spellcasting" from her "martial prowess" than you could separate a poet's "vocabulary" from his "grammar"--to use one skill in any functional way [I]is[/I] to use the other skill, and vice-versa. [/QUOTE]

Verification