Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mecheon" data-source="post: 8521001" data-attributes="member: 6801776">When I look at classes I go for the archetype, not so much the mechanical side. But the artificer is the archetype of the gadget-user, which is one that's been lacking a long while and why it'll keep showing up. Barbarian and Fighter are two different archetypes these days, even if there's overlap, and especially wizard, warlock and sorcerer, between &quot;Studying to gain power&quot;, &quot;Born under auspicious circumstances&quot; and &quot;Bargained with something to gain power&quot;. Problem of course is the way D&amp;D is at the moment is they're not differentiated mechanically heavy despite how different those archetypes are.Anywho, assassin's one of those odd ones because while I do think it does have a strong archetype, the problem is its archetype doesnt' play well with how D&amp;D is these days. Which is why I'm kindIf someone could do up a good one I could see it being classed up again as there's promise there, but making it work mechanically alongside everything else is where the issue does come in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mecheon, post: 8521001, member: 6801776"] When I look at classes I go for the archetype, not so much the mechanical side. But the artificer is the archetype of the gadget-user, which is one that's been lacking a long while and why it'll keep showing up. Barbarian and Fighter are two different archetypes these days, even if there's overlap, and especially wizard, warlock and sorcerer, between "Studying to gain power", "Born under auspicious circumstances" and "Bargained with something to gain power". Problem of course is the way D&D is at the moment is they're not differentiated mechanically heavy despite how different those archetypes are. Anywho, assassin's one of those odd ones because while I do think it does have a strong archetype, the problem is its archetype doesnt' play well with how D&D is these days. Which is why I'm kind If someone could do up a good one I could see it being classed up again as there's promise there, but making it work mechanically alongside everything else is where the issue does come in. [/QUOTE]

Verification