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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8742435" data-attributes="member: 5889">For me its less about what classes, and what "spheres or mechanics or flavor" are not well represented by our current list.Take the witch for example. Frankly I think there are tons of ways to make a witch right now. A sorceror or warlock I think can make very serviceable witches, or even a circle of the land druid. Even a basic "psion" can be done with a sorc and subtle spell, though the sorc subclass that focuses on that augments it a bit more. If you want a Warlord as a "fighter that can inspire", the battle master already has inspiring manuevers, just add a few more to the list and bam your there.So to me its really about, what are the rules dropping the ball on? What archetypes just don't have great support, because they require the rules to stretch in ways that they just don't do well right now? I mentioned the pet focused class because right now classes are all about the person, and so there is little design space to make a strong pet...its simply too OP. The solution is a new class that intentionally weakness the character, and therefore gives more space to allow for a strong pet without upsetting balance.If you want a psion that has a completely different way to cast spells....ok now we are talking. but if its just a psion that "doesn't use components"....no reason to reinvent the wheel.The artificer makes sense to me because crafting (especially fast and temporary crafting) doesn't have a lot of rules support right now.</blockquote>

Verification