Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Amrûnril" data-source="post: 8594320" data-attributes="member: 6841183">This is an interesting topic, though I don't think I find the OP's examples particularly compelling.The Artificer, as noted, has already been officially added to the game, first in a setting supplement and shortly thereafter in one of the only two player-facing rules expansions that have been published. It's as &quot;core&quot; as anything not published in 2014 can be in the current game. Also worth noting is that, while magitech is the commonly assumed flavor for the artificer, the class also works for magical crafters with more &quot;traditional&quot; aesthetics/methods, and (if you're willing to reflavor spells) for inventors without a strongly magical orientation.The Gunslinger's setting assumptions and genre-blending aesthetic make it, in my opinion, a great example of an archetype that should be supported but not considered as &quot;core&quot;.The Witcher seems far to IP specific to make sense as a general class option. If you're creating material specifically for a campaign set in the universe of The Witcher, that's one thing, but otherwise, it would be like the game including Jedi or Istari among its class options. But there are plenty of ways of building a Witcher-like character with existing options (different ones emphasizing different aspects of &quot;Witcher-ness&quot;), which seems like a sign that the system's working well.A more generally archetype I'd say is poorly supported is a weapon-based combatant who relies more on mental capabilities than on physical prowess. Personally, though, I'd rather see this addressed through reworking/rebalancing of ability scores than through a discrete class option.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Amrûnril, post: 8594320, member: 6841183"] This is an interesting topic, though I don't think I find the OP's examples particularly compelling. The Artificer, as noted, has already been officially added to the game, first in a setting supplement and shortly thereafter in one of the only two player-facing rules expansions that have been published. It's as "core" as anything not published in 2014 can be in the current game. Also worth noting is that, while magitech is the commonly assumed flavor for the artificer, the class also works for magical crafters with more "traditional" aesthetics/methods, and (if you're willing to reflavor spells) for inventors without a strongly magical orientation. The Gunslinger's setting assumptions and genre-blending aesthetic make it, in my opinion, a great example of an archetype that should be supported but not considered as "core". The Witcher seems far to IP specific to make sense as a general class option. If you're creating material specifically for a campaign set in the universe of The Witcher, that's one thing, but otherwise, it would be like the game including Jedi or Istari among its class options. But there are plenty of ways of building a Witcher-like character with existing options (different ones emphasizing different aspects of "Witcher-ness"), which seems like a sign that the system's working well. A more generally archetype I'd say is poorly supported is a weapon-based combatant who relies more on mental capabilities than on physical prowess. Personally, though, I'd rather see this addressed through reworking/rebalancing of ability scores than through a discrete class option. [/QUOTE]

Verification