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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LuisCarlos17f" data-source="post: 8560661" data-attributes="member: 6802378">Let's remember now the warlock is a core class, and the sorcerer. Then why the psionic mysthic has to be only a subclass, but whose powers use a different game mechanic? Some players would rather to be "exotic", to be different, using the classes and PC races the rest doesn't to feel they are very special and unique. What about the lurk?, a potential hybrid stealth+powers for who wants to play an ersatz of "Assasin's Creed". My bet is after the psionic powers the next step will be the (ki) martial adepts, but maybe not the same classes from "Tome of Battle: Book of the nine Swords", or not with the same names. <img src="https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/resource/images/classes/96340.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="width: 309px" />[ATTACH=full]152657[/ATTACH]Other point is about players borrowing ideas from 3PPs or speculative fiction.<img src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/634/917/a814b376915c10ead4564f6675cb7d48_large.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="width: 288px" />The (vestige) binder was enoughly special to be remember. The shadowcaster (3.5 Tome of Magic) would be recycled for an elementalist, and the "mysteries", powers, working with a game mechanic like the martial maneuvers, in the middle between at-will and once-encounter. Soulborn and incarnate were too "paladin with incarnum soulmelds" but the (incarnum) totemist shaman deserver an opportunity to return with its own style. Why not to fuse the vestige binder and the incarnum (totemist) shaman? The truenamer was an interesting concept, but too limited in the options, not enough flexible.</blockquote>

Verification