Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lycurgon" data-source="post: 8790444" data-attributes="member: 7025583">I don't want this approach. If the first concern with class design is Class Group before it's own identity it will lead to bad class design. In the UA a Paladin is assigned the priests group and that group is defined as "Stewards of Divine or Primal magic, focusing on healing, utility, and defense" The current Paladin does not fill that group role primarily, it is more focused on being combatant and damage dealer. It has some elements of healing, utility and defense, sure; but Paladins is a poor choice if you are wanting them for their healing ability. A Paladin would have to have a big redesign to be primarily filling their group role above their own identity. It also limits future concepts. If WotC ever create a Psion/Mystic class for Dark Sun, they would either need to define Psionics into Arcane magic to fit the Mage Group, or make them Experts with the Expertise feature just to fit that group or would need to create a new group all their own. If they ever create a Swordmage/Arcane Gish class, they would either have to focus on being primarily a Mage - focusing on Destruction and Utility magic, or on being primarily a Warrior - A master of combat that deals and endures many wounds. This would be a disservice to a Swordmage class which is about combining Combat and Magic. The original 4e Swordmage is a Defender, but being focused on defense can't be a main focus for a class unless it fits the Priest Group. There are so many problems with a focus on Group before class identity.</blockquote>

Verification