Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9010652" data-attributes="member: 7006">To me, the Witcher has become the iconic &quot;flavorful&quot; arcane warrior in fantasy today.&nbsp; It is first and foremost a weapon-user above anything else (just like the Ranger and Paladin are)... and it has a very specific reason for its existence, in that it is a monster hunter that uses arcane magic to defend itself against the magics of the monsters it hunts.&nbsp; Now some people would say that the Ranger should technically fall under this umbrella (being the prototypical hunter class), but I would disagree.&nbsp; Rangers are very specifically about wilderness survival and protecting animals and nature from those that would destroy them.&nbsp; Any &quot;monster hunting&quot; would be purely an extension of that.&nbsp; Whereas Witchers are only about tracking down and killing aberrations and monsters on behalf of the regular citizenry that hire them.&nbsp; And their use of arcane magic specifically goes to and enhances that.&nbsp; It's not just a fighter that casts spells (your prototypical Eldritch Knight)... the Witcher's flavor is specific.Now granted... parts of the Warlock leans in that direction, and the Witcher concept also gets covered to a certain extent by Darrington Press's Blood Hunter class (the closest mutant Witcher/monster hunter archetype WotC/D&amp;D Beyond probably has.)&nbsp; So the reasoning could be made that a Witcher class isn't necessary, and I honestly can't argue with that (especially if the whole/only reason someone wants an &quot;arcane warrior&quot; class is merely because of the symmetry aspect of adding it to the Ranger's primal and Paladin's divine &quot;half-caster&quot; status, which seems to be the clarion call for many people's desire for it to be a thing.)But I'll be honest... right now there are what I would call three &quot;generic&quot; classes-- ones with little to no flavor or fluff in the base class-- it's pretty much purely all just mechanics-- and who gets all their identity from their subclasses.&nbsp; The Fighter, the Rogue, and the Sorcerer.&nbsp; And honestly I just don't think a &quot;generic&quot; arcane warrior class is really useful or adds to the game on top of those three.&nbsp; If you already have a generic warrior in the Fighter, and a generic arcane caster in the Sorcerer... my instinct is to just throw more magic into a Fighter or more weapon-use into a Sorcerer, rather than create a whole new class that splits the difference.&nbsp; But that's just me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9010652, member: 7006"] To me, the Witcher has become the iconic "flavorful" arcane warrior in fantasy today. It is first and foremost a weapon-user above anything else (just like the Ranger and Paladin are)... and it has a very specific reason for its existence, in that it is a monster hunter that uses arcane magic to defend itself against the magics of the monsters it hunts. Now some people would say that the Ranger should technically fall under this umbrella (being the prototypical hunter class), but I would disagree. Rangers are very specifically about wilderness survival and protecting animals and nature from those that would destroy them. Any "monster hunting" would be purely an extension of that. Whereas Witchers are only about tracking down and killing aberrations and monsters on behalf of the regular citizenry that hire them. And their use of arcane magic specifically goes to and enhances that. It's not just a fighter that casts spells (your prototypical Eldritch Knight)... the Witcher's flavor is specific. Now granted... parts of the Warlock leans in that direction, and the Witcher concept also gets covered to a certain extent by Darrington Press's Blood Hunter class (the closest mutant Witcher/monster hunter archetype WotC/D&D Beyond probably has.) So the reasoning could be made that a Witcher class isn't necessary, and I honestly can't argue with that (especially if the whole/only reason someone wants an "arcane warrior" class is merely because of the symmetry aspect of adding it to the Ranger's primal and Paladin's divine "half-caster" status, which seems to be the clarion call for many people's desire for it to be a thing.) But I'll be honest... right now there are what I would call three "generic" classes-- ones with little to no flavor or fluff in the base class-- it's pretty much purely all just mechanics-- and who gets all their identity from their subclasses. The Fighter, the Rogue, and the Sorcerer. And honestly I just don't think a "generic" arcane warrior class is really useful or adds to the game on top of those three. If you already have a generic warrior in the Fighter, and a generic arcane caster in the Sorcerer... my instinct is to just throw more magic into a Fighter or more weapon-use into a Sorcerer, rather than create a whole new class that splits the difference. But that's just me. [/QUOTE]

Verification