Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6717126" data-attributes="member: 1879">I think the flexibility of 5e means that there is less need than in previous editions for a specific class to cover any given concept. In 3e for example the &quot;magic using fighter&quot; concept metastasized into the blade singer, dusk blade, hex blade, etc. etc. etc. because no one was ever really satisfied with it due to the limitations of 3es math. With 5es simplified framework I think any reasonable take on the idea is achievable with at most an altered spell list and cosmetic tweaks from the existing pool of options.In addition I, personally, do not care for, and do not want to see classes based around purely mechanical design goals. For example in 3.5 the Bo9S classes were created to fix the linear fighter, quadratic wizard problem. Since 5e suffers from this much less, I see no need to reintroduce them.There are some classes/fantasy archetypes the current pool of options covers poorly or not at all, however.As many have mentioned, the artificer. The binder from the ToM was a fantastically flavorful class. I always loved the Totemist from MoI although the rest of the book I could happily leave in a ditch. It occurs to me that for all those classes, the mechanical schtick is magical effects, which are less powerful than spells, but more reliable/available. I suspect you could easily make a single base class built around that idea, and then offer the Artificer/Binder/Totemist/dragon shaman/whatever as sub-classes to it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 6717126, member: 1879"] I think the flexibility of 5e means that there is less need than in previous editions for a specific class to cover any given concept. In 3e for example the "magic using fighter" concept metastasized into the blade singer, dusk blade, hex blade, etc. etc. etc. because no one was ever really satisfied with it due to the limitations of 3es math. With 5es simplified framework I think any reasonable take on the idea is achievable with at most an altered spell list and cosmetic tweaks from the existing pool of options. In addition I, personally, do not care for, and do not want to see classes based around purely mechanical design goals. For example in 3.5 the Bo9S classes were created to fix the linear fighter, quadratic wizard problem. Since 5e suffers from this much less, I see no need to reintroduce them. There are some classes/fantasy archetypes the current pool of options covers poorly or not at all, however. As many have mentioned, the artificer. The binder from the ToM was a fantastically flavorful class. I always loved the Totemist from MoI although the rest of the book I could happily leave in a ditch. It occurs to me that for all those classes, the mechanical schtick is magical effects, which are less powerful than spells, but more reliable/available. I suspect you could easily make a single base class built around that idea, and then offer the Artificer/Binder/Totemist/dragon shaman/whatever as sub-classes to it. [/QUOTE]

Verification