Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 5950747" data-attributes="member: 54843">We're not necessarily talking about people screaming &quot;MAKE PALADIN A CORE CLASS OR I QUIT!&quot; I think the worst-case scenario here is something like the 3e sorcerer, which is basically a wizard with a &quot;spontaneous casting&quot; theme. Now, this is an awesome archetype that I desperately wanted to play in the early 3e days, but it didn't seem to fit at all with the mechanics of the game. Why would my awesome sorcerer, powered by the blood of dragons, need to carry around bat guano and read scrolls when he wanted to blow something up? They tried to make minor modifications to the wizard mechanics to shoehorn in a different archetype and it didn't work at all (IMO).Years later, they accomplished much the same archetype goal with the 3.5 warlock class. Now there's a class I would jump on, and be that much more enthused about the game.For 5e, they COULD make the paladin and ranger work as theme/background adaptations for rogues, clerics and fighters. But if I want to play a zealous warrior of Gruumsh, I'd much rather have a class that's perfectly suited to the task than have a cleric who's also good with swords. And if I want to play Aragorn, I'd rather have a badass ranger class at hand than just make a fighter with the Woodsman background.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 5950747, member: 54843"] We're not necessarily talking about people screaming "MAKE PALADIN A CORE CLASS OR I QUIT!" I think the worst-case scenario here is something like the 3e sorcerer, which is basically a wizard with a "spontaneous casting" theme. Now, this is an awesome archetype that I desperately wanted to play in the early 3e days, but it didn't seem to fit at all with the mechanics of the game. Why would my awesome sorcerer, powered by the blood of dragons, need to carry around bat guano and read scrolls when he wanted to blow something up? They tried to make minor modifications to the wizard mechanics to shoehorn in a different archetype and it didn't work at all (IMO). Years later, they accomplished much the same archetype goal with the 3.5 warlock class. Now there's a class I would jump on, and be that much more enthused about the game. For 5e, they COULD make the paladin and ranger work as theme/background adaptations for rogues, clerics and fighters. But if I want to play a zealous warrior of Gruumsh, I'd much rather have a class that's perfectly suited to the task than have a cleric who's also good with swords. And if I want to play Aragorn, I'd rather have a badass ranger class at hand than just make a fighter with the Woodsman background. [/QUOTE]

Verification