Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gnarl45" data-source="post: 6561078" data-attributes="member: 6787695">It's a matter of perspective. What you call niche/highly specialized concepts, I call common archetypes. What you call a suitable ways of making them, I call incomplete solutions.If I really think about it, what I'm really missing in 5e are a generic skill monkey class and a generic magic-user subclass. The fighter for exemple has two generic subclasses: the champion and the battlemaster. I can use those for any character concept that knows how to fight. Now if you take the rogue, it's a different story. The rogue has sneak attack as a class feature. That gives him a dirty fighter/assassin feel that you can't avoid. The wizard's problem is that you have to play a specialist. Did you get this information in an official announcement or are you making this up?And I'm not asking for bloat. I'm asking for a rogue that isn't a dirty fighter and a magic-user that isn't a specialist. You know, generic building blocks that you can use to make pretty much any character you can imagine. I didn't like the 3e/4e option bloat any more than you did. I don't think a sneak attack variant or a generalist wizard subclass are too much to ask.</blockquote>