Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Running Eberron in 5E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fralex" data-source="post: 6464446" data-attributes="member: 6785902"><p>I don't think classes really need to be as different from each other as you claim to feel unique, Kamikaze Midget. Could a druid have just been relegated to a Nature Domain cleric? After all, the ancient druids from history were basically priests who revered nature. Just adjust the subclass features to give a Nature cleric shapeshifting as their Channel Divinity, Druidic as a bonus language, and make the domain spells be all the most iconic druid spells. Use the remaining subclass features to add in any other major druid abilities. You'd end up with something that could pass for a druid. But would the player who's always loved being a druid really be satisfied with the options avaliable? By making a druid just a specific kind of cleric, you remove most of the choices a player would ordinarily make about how they want to build their class. And you sort of imply that druids aren't really as important or evocative as clerics, that if you kept them as a full class there wouldn't be enough ways you could go with them to make adding extra options worthwhile.</p><p></p><p>I've seen this happening with a few players regarding the warlord class. Some of the people who really loved that class don't feel like the Battlemaster fighter does enough to scratch that itch. On the surface, yeah, you can make a martial character that gives allies extra attacks, moves them around, and helps them fight through grievous injury with inspiring words that light a fire in them. I looked at this and thought, <em>Yep, sounds like a warlord to me. The people complaining it's not supported anymore are just being difficult.</em> But after talking with some of them, I came to understand that yes, they were well aware of the fact that fighters could now do some things warlords could do, but anyone who wants to play as a warlord like they did in 4e will pretty much be forced into a very specific chain of options. The warlord abilities would come with limitations; <em>Commander's Strike</em> was supposed to be something they could use as much as they wanted. Now after barking a couple orders to their allies, their, um, voice gets too sore and they have to rest to clear it again? And they run out of shouting faster if they parry something? For people who just sort of had a passing interest in warlords these options might be enough, but for the people who <em>loved</em> the class? Trying to be one in 5e just reminds them of all the things they still can't do no matter how they build the character.</p><p></p><p>It's the same thing with the artificer. What do you think of the artificer class? Have you played one much? Can you approach the design of the 5e artificer with the mindset of the sort of person this class would appeal to? When the 5e artificer gets made, it deserves to be made by someone who really <em>loves</em> it. Your suggestions about making it a wizard subclass sound OK on the surface, but I don't feel like a mere subclass has enough depth to satisfy the people who care about it the most. In some ways artificers <em>are</em> a lot like wizards. But when I play an artificer, I never feel like I'm playing a wizard. The way things feel, the themes they embody and the stories they tell are an important part of game design, just like mechanics are. It's an art and a science.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fralex, post: 6464446, member: 6785902"] I don't think classes really need to be as different from each other as you claim to feel unique, Kamikaze Midget. Could a druid have just been relegated to a Nature Domain cleric? After all, the ancient druids from history were basically priests who revered nature. Just adjust the subclass features to give a Nature cleric shapeshifting as their Channel Divinity, Druidic as a bonus language, and make the domain spells be all the most iconic druid spells. Use the remaining subclass features to add in any other major druid abilities. You'd end up with something that could pass for a druid. But would the player who's always loved being a druid really be satisfied with the options avaliable? By making a druid just a specific kind of cleric, you remove most of the choices a player would ordinarily make about how they want to build their class. And you sort of imply that druids aren't really as important or evocative as clerics, that if you kept them as a full class there wouldn't be enough ways you could go with them to make adding extra options worthwhile. I've seen this happening with a few players regarding the warlord class. Some of the people who really loved that class don't feel like the Battlemaster fighter does enough to scratch that itch. On the surface, yeah, you can make a martial character that gives allies extra attacks, moves them around, and helps them fight through grievous injury with inspiring words that light a fire in them. I looked at this and thought, [I]Yep, sounds like a warlord to me. The people complaining it's not supported anymore are just being difficult.[/I] But after talking with some of them, I came to understand that yes, they were well aware of the fact that fighters could now do some things warlords could do, but anyone who wants to play as a warlord like they did in 4e will pretty much be forced into a very specific chain of options. The warlord abilities would come with limitations; [I]Commander's Strike[/I] was supposed to be something they could use as much as they wanted. Now after barking a couple orders to their allies, their, um, voice gets too sore and they have to rest to clear it again? And they run out of shouting faster if they parry something? For people who just sort of had a passing interest in warlords these options might be enough, but for the people who [I]loved[/I] the class? Trying to be one in 5e just reminds them of all the things they still can't do no matter how they build the character. It's the same thing with the artificer. What do you think of the artificer class? Have you played one much? Can you approach the design of the 5e artificer with the mindset of the sort of person this class would appeal to? When the 5e artificer gets made, it deserves to be made by someone who really [I]loves[/I] it. Your suggestions about making it a wizard subclass sound OK on the surface, but I don't feel like a mere subclass has enough depth to satisfy the people who care about it the most. In some ways artificers [I]are[/I] a lot like wizards. But when I play an artificer, I never feel like I'm playing a wizard. The way things feel, the themes they embody and the stories they tell are an important part of game design, just like mechanics are. It's an art and a science. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Running Eberron in 5E
Top