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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 8478681" data-attributes="member: 63508">Well that's a whole different problem.If a class is orphaned it still existed.Choosing to forget them an retcon them by the IP holders is a conscious decision.Unnecessary? That's like your opinion, man.TSR and WOTC only getting creative late in an edition every single time.Everything doesn't need to be a separate class. However if TSR/WOC thought up a new idea that works with the lore,they thought up a new idea that works with the lore. I mean the whole "rangers and paladins cast spells" is due to the designers or each edition not wanting to make a scaling crafting and practice system and just reused the spell system.It's the same thing every edition. TSR/WOTC reuse the spell and magic item system to recreate the classics. Then midway in the edition, they flood the game with magic items, spells, and creatures. Finally late in the edition, in order to sell new books (since everyone is tired or disappointed with the magic flood), new nonmagical and magical concepts are explored.D&D always waits to the end of an edition to let the creative juices flow and usually doesn't take much of the previously created ideas to the start of a new edition. Frankly I'll take 20 classes with 3 subclasses each over 13 classes with 7-10 subclasses that jump all over the place.Well only Star/GOO Warlocks. I'd separate them into their own class.But since you don't think psions and psionic crusaders are non-magical in the sense of how D&D describes magic, then we are far apart on what we see magic is structurally.But I'm rather Hard Magic in the way I see D&D magic and my ideas would jive with Soft Magic fans.</blockquote>

Verification