Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Undrave" data-source="post: 8087497" data-attributes="member: 7015698">some are saying that certain classes are still here because of legacy reason, but let's not forget the storm of complaint 4e got for not having the Bard, Sorcerer and Barbarian (and Gnome and Half-Orc) in the first PHB... I'm curious too. It's a CLASS based game. I'd rather have more options. I dunno why that's such a big deal. I don't think any classes properly overlap in 5e. Its more of a Venn Diagram thing where certain classes touches and others exist in the overlap of two larger circles. Personally I'd go the other way and break off the wider classes. Wizard in particular is just a grab bag of stuff from an era when there WERE only a few classes. But while the Fighter and Cleric (and Thief) got their stuff stolen, the Wizard only got copied and remain the arcane grab bag it used to be. In 4e, the Cleric, Paladin, Invoker and Avenger could all exist and feel distinct, I don't know why it wouldn't be possible in 5e. I totally agree. I feel like power sources were a great way to add flavor and consistency to various classes and I could really go for an edition that leaned into it more. Primal no longer really exist and is, somehow, a type of Divine?! If each had a core mechanical identity (like Channel Divinity) attached to it, alongside class-based fluffier options (like the way the Warden's Forms and Barbarian's Rage had different take on spirits coming into you) it'd be great.I also think they should have kept the concept of role, and design each class with a main role in mind (only they would have hidden it from the players) then design each subclass with either supporting the main role or adding a secondary role. This would probably have given us a more solid Ranger and Monk IMO. There's more than one way to be a Warlord and I think it'd be really boring and limiting to try and pull it off with a single Fighter subclass. There's not just enough room in a Fighter subclass for it! For my home-brew Warlord I wrote up EIGHT subclasses, with a 9th one I have in mind right now, and they aren't as simple as 'inspiring Warlord vs Tactical Warlord'. the same could easily be said of the Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger. The fact 5e managed to give us multiple subclasses for those prove there is plenty of conceptual ground to work with that would not be fully covered if they were reduced to a single subclass. the 5e playlets apparently had this really cool concept for the Sorcerer where the more you used Sorcery points the more of your ancestry you manifested! Stuff like Draconic sorcerers getting scales, claws and wings... It sound like it would have been absolutely amazing but they somehow balked at it and back-pedalled to this boring spell slot based Sorcerer. A lot of people are saying the Sorcerer works best if you use the Spell Point variant instead? Also, if you're casting by channeling energy from within, your casting stat should totally be CON and not CHA.</blockquote>

Verification