Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shardstone" data-source="post: 7864085" data-attributes="member: 6807784">I agree that a lot of ideas can be developed really well as full base classes instead of sub-classes.I do not agree that every class that can be developed well into a base class still shouldn't be a sub-class.I think I could make compelling norse-inspired Rune cast with a skald, rune warrior, rune priest/enscriber sub-classes as a Wisdom-based gish half-caster. But I could also just make those into three different sub-classes and package them that way.I'm blessed that I have the desire to make my own classes and sub-classes. Its a lot of work but I enjoy it (this is the blessing), so I keep making them. But not everyone has the desire to create game material that may or may not ever be used for free. On top of this is the stigma that unless WotC makes something, what I feel is about 70% of the gaming population will never play it. 3rd Party/Indie material and homebrew are both treated as "bad until proven otherwise" and are rarely used. So, I empathize with why people want more base classes. For some tables, I imagine its the only way certain ideas will ever get made.But there is something nice about 5E and that is how curated it is. I like how sub-classes and classes require 70% approval or else face the axe. And I won't lie - there have been UA's before I wish made it. The Sorcerer UA's, the archivist, the Mystic, weapon feats, and more. But ultimately, a curated game is a higher quality game in my eyes. As long as everything meets the 70% requirement, I'm ok with it.That doesn't mean I like everything that's been released. The alchemist is a very unfun to me and is not at all what I want an alchemist to do. But its been curated in, and the wider audience will like it, and so I begrudgingly come to accept it.All this to say: what ultimately sucks the most is the attitude stated above that people just don't like non-WotC stuff added to the game.People will tell you not to make a Witch class in a 3rd party or homebrew, it seems, just because it can, in theory, already be replicated. People will make sure that you know that your ideas don't deserve to be in the game, even if it is just for your table. Its weird to me because a lot of the arguments don't hold up under scrutiny.For example, the Psion. Yes, it can be a <Insert class of choice here>. But a Ranger can be a Fighter. A Paladin can be a Fighter. A rogue, really, can be a Fighter too. As can a Monk. A Battle Smith. A Bladesinger.But these things aren't fighters. They were given space to grow for two reasons:1. They are compelling fantasy archetypes, making them perfect to explore in a Fantasy game.2. They have a legacy rooted in older editions, thus making D&D self-referential.The 2nd point is arguably more important to me. And because of that point, it proves that some classes deserve to be made into full-classes.The Psion is one of those. It has a legacy. It has a shaky legacy, yes, and one that shows that clear improvement can be made, but it has a legacy as a standalone class just as the Ranger, Barbarian, Bard, and Paladin do. Just as the Sorcerer and Warlock and Monk and Druid. Always has the Psion been seen to stand alongside these things, more so than even the artificer. Because of that, and that alone, does the Psion deserve its own class.The Witch? Maybe. I will admit the 5E Warlock has cannibalized a lot of the old witch class stuff from the 3.5/X era. But I've made my own Witch class, and I think the Witch can be a great addition, but is more likely to be seen in a 3rd party supplement, as will Shamans.</blockquote>

Verification