Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Question" data-source="post: 3049063" data-attributes="member: 40104">We have too many underpowered or highly situational classes.For example knights wont work in most campaigns.......due primarily to mounted combat and all their abilities are incredibly situational. They also dont seem to have much damaging capability, compared to fighters who already function well enough in the tank role.Beguilers seem oddly out of place in a standard adventuring campaign, but much more suited to intrigue style campaigns......for example if the PCs were working for a thieve's guild and trying to steal stuff, solve a mystery, so on and so forth. Hexblades are just underpowered compared to the duskblade. Thankfully wizards got it right the 2nd time around.Warlocks are.....okay they are nicely balanced, and all.......the problem is they are too boring. All they do is "i fire eldrict blast with so and so invocation". Most of the combat rounds, they will do the exact same thing, over and over with no variation(other than switching targets). Its very hard to roleplay a warlock.....realistically speaking what it looks like is they are raising their hands firing eldrict blasts, unless the player wants to try and RP hollywood style(i fire a eldrict blast from under my raised leg!)Anyway........i dont see how many classes is a bad thing. If they are decently done, they cant help but add to the variety of options a player and DM can have.Technically speaking, yea you CAN play a gish type mage by taking a sub optimal multi-class fighter/wiz build, then levels in the non-impressive eldrict knight class.......but why should you have to do this when there is a duskblade class that does this decently, without requiring you to gimp your PC?</blockquote>

Verification