Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6945029" data-attributes="member: 996">Have we ever had that before?Conceptually, I can see it - I quite like the 2e CPH with the spheres and custom priesthoods, but I wonder how much interest there really is...Could be a place to put some sort of Shaman.Anything that's only a minor variation on multi-attack-based DPR.&nbsp; That leaves out a lot of 3.x builds (a few of them even viable) and Bo9S &amp; 4e martial innovations.Noble seems to capture the main thrust of the 1e UA cavalier, and Paladin the Essentials cavalier.&nbsp; Better saves at high level are definitely something I'd like to see (and haven't since AD&amp;D).Can't argue with any of that.&nbsp; Except that Ranger &amp; Pally have been full classes in the past (both 3e &amp; 4e), so probably deserved it this time around.With Backgrounds diluting any sort of skill-based niche protection, the rogue is prettymuch a backstabber, and, yeah, that's more than covered.I'm definitely warming to the idea of a generic bloodline, like, to the point of it being a paint-by-numbers bloodline kit for the DM &amp; player to collaborate on.The 5e wizard is a fair bit like the 2e &amp; 3e 'specialist,' but without the non-specialist.&nbsp; I get the call for a generic Tradition (non-tradition?) who just learns a very wide variety of spells, in contrast to the focused traditions - I like 'Mage,' like in 2e, for a name.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6945029, member: 996"] Have we ever had that before? Conceptually, I can see it - I quite like the 2e CPH with the spheres and custom priesthoods, but I wonder how much interest there really is... Could be a place to put some sort of Shaman. Anything that's only a minor variation on multi-attack-based DPR. That leaves out a lot of 3.x builds (a few of them even viable) and Bo9S & 4e martial innovations. Noble seems to capture the main thrust of the 1e UA cavalier, and Paladin the Essentials cavalier. Better saves at high level are definitely something I'd like to see (and haven't since AD&D). Can't argue with any of that. Except that Ranger & Pally have been full classes in the past (both 3e & 4e), so probably deserved it this time around. With Backgrounds diluting any sort of skill-based niche protection, the rogue is prettymuch a backstabber, and, yeah, that's more than covered. I'm definitely warming to the idea of a generic bloodline, like, to the point of it being a paint-by-numbers bloodline kit for the DM & player to collaborate on. The 5e wizard is a fair bit like the 2e & 3e 'specialist,' but without the non-specialist. I get the call for a generic Tradition (non-tradition?) who just learns a very wide variety of spells, in contrast to the focused traditions - I like 'Mage,' like in 2e, for a name. [/QUOTE]

Verification