Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6944999" data-attributes="member: 40233">I don't think they need to worry about numbers...just go for holes that aren't easily filled.&nbsp; So far, it seems they are going for more &quot;flavorful&quot; choices--cornercase archetypes with very specific backstories that aren't easily expanded to fit a broader definition. This is disappointing, because it feels like its supplanting their imagination for my own.I'd like them to ask themselves; is their something we can only really do with Multiclassing?&nbsp; And make that.&nbsp; Once that's covered, they can start just making stuff up.Barbarian--we need a &quot;civilized&quot; barbarian subclass; a nonmagical choice that isn't as savage, or as limited in use, as the berserker.Bard--the two main subclasses already do a good job of pushing the jack of all trades into emphasizing a particular direction.&nbsp; We could use one more for characters who push the roguish aspects of a bard.Cleric--can always use more divine domains.Druid--pretty well covered.Fighter--Battlemaster and Champion can be almost anything, so might as well start filling in corner cases--swashbucklers, cavaliers, and the like.&nbsp; I would really like a subclass that gave the fighter some always on saving throw bonuses&nbsp;Monk--I'm not the best judge of monks, thinking that what we consider &quot;monk abilities&quot; are actually &quot;high level fighter&quot; abilities, so I'll leave that for others.Paladin--I guess we can always come up with more Oaths, but I don't feel like there is anything I can't play with the existing ones.Ranger--Honestly, by this point, I hate the ranger.&nbsp; I'd rather we just have the fighter with an outdoorsman background and leave it at that.&nbsp; Or have the paladin and ranger as fighter subclasses.Rogue--No real holes as far as I can see.&nbsp; The subclasses in SCAG filled up the obvious holesSorceror--need more bloodlines.&nbsp; But really needs a &quot;generic&quot; bloodline--an Arcane bloodline, for &quot;Magic courses through my veins!&quot; kind of sorceror. Warlock--can always have more Patrons.&nbsp; Again, needs something like &quot;Arcane&quot; or &quot;Ancestral&quot; for people who want to be warlocks of Mystra or something, or the latest scion of an ancient cabal of magic-users (that's the trouble with giving all these synonyms different mechanics; if I say &quot;sorcerous cabal&quot; how does a warlock join?).&nbsp; Dr. Strange is basically a Tome Warlock; it would be nice to have something like the Vishanti or Agamotto as a Patron.&nbsp; Not everyone wants to be Faust or Spawn.Wizards--pretty much covered, might as well start on corner cases.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Salamandyr, post: 6944999, member: 40233"] I don't think they need to worry about numbers...just go for holes that aren't easily filled. So far, it seems they are going for more "flavorful" choices--cornercase archetypes with very specific backstories that aren't easily expanded to fit a broader definition. This is disappointing, because it feels like its supplanting their imagination for my own. I'd like them to ask themselves; is their something we can only really do with Multiclassing? And make that. Once that's covered, they can start just making stuff up. Barbarian--we need a "civilized" barbarian subclass; a nonmagical choice that isn't as savage, or as limited in use, as the berserker. Bard--the two main subclasses already do a good job of pushing the jack of all trades into emphasizing a particular direction. We could use one more for characters who push the roguish aspects of a bard. Cleric--can always use more divine domains. Druid--pretty well covered. Fighter--Battlemaster and Champion can be almost anything, so might as well start filling in corner cases--swashbucklers, cavaliers, and the like. I would really like a subclass that gave the fighter some always on saving throw bonuses Monk--I'm not the best judge of monks, thinking that what we consider "monk abilities" are actually "high level fighter" abilities, so I'll leave that for others. Paladin--I guess we can always come up with more Oaths, but I don't feel like there is anything I can't play with the existing ones. Ranger--Honestly, by this point, I hate the ranger. I'd rather we just have the fighter with an outdoorsman background and leave it at that. Or have the paladin and ranger as fighter subclasses. Rogue--No real holes as far as I can see. The subclasses in SCAG filled up the obvious holes Sorceror--need more bloodlines. But [I]really[/I] needs a "generic" bloodline--an Arcane bloodline, for "Magic courses through my veins!" kind of sorceror. Warlock--can always have more Patrons. Again, needs something like "Arcane" or "Ancestral" for people who want to be warlocks of Mystra or something, or the latest scion of an ancient cabal of magic-users (that's the trouble with giving all these synonyms different mechanics; if I say "sorcerous cabal" how does a warlock join?). Dr. Strange is basically a Tome Warlock; it would be nice to have something like the Vishanti or Agamotto as a Patron. Not everyone wants to be Faust or Spawn. Wizards--pretty much covered, might as well start on corner cases. [/QUOTE]

Verification