Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 8414058" data-attributes="member: 6803643">I love that classes aren't beholden to these roles. Artificers could be Arcane Gish warriors or arcane experts, like magical rogues, or Wizards lite with a penchant for magic items. Bards can be warriors or tricksters or scholars. Clerics can be pacifist prophets or templar-like warriors. Paladins can be naturey or demony or Uatu-y, while Rangers can be warriors or sneaks or pet keepers or more magically planar focused. Barbarians can be religious zealots or naturey channelers of ancestor or totem spirits, or just plane werewolves or nonmagical rage-monsters. Or heavily armoured spikey balls of rage, even. Wizards can be necromancers or spellblades or artillerists or enchanters, etc. Monks can be hand-to-hand martial artists or weapon masters, or itinerant holy persons or element-benders or Dragon Ball Z, or psionic astral projection weirdness or penitent pacifists, etc. Warlocks can be nature witches or fiendish witches or alienists or deep summoners or occult priests etc while also being either BDSM-summoners or cheating students who smuggled the text book into the test room or even witch-knights.I love that 5e broke down the chassis of classes, broadening their scope beyond one or two power sources and combat roles.I've also tried to make this chassis way too many times in the past few decades. I think there are some good options for you above, but I would learn to let go of the chassis and recognise that each class can have multiple archetypal relationships within it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marandahir, post: 8414058, member: 6803643"] I love that classes aren't beholden to these roles. Artificers could be Arcane Gish warriors or arcane experts, like magical rogues, or Wizards lite with a penchant for magic items. Bards can be warriors or tricksters or scholars. Clerics can be pacifist prophets or templar-like warriors. Paladins can be naturey or demony or Uatu-y, while Rangers can be warriors or sneaks or pet keepers or more magically planar focused. Barbarians can be religious zealots or naturey channelers of ancestor or totem spirits, or just plane werewolves or nonmagical rage-monsters. Or heavily armoured spikey balls of rage, even. Wizards can be necromancers or spellblades or artillerists or enchanters, etc. Monks can be hand-to-hand martial artists or weapon masters, or itinerant holy persons or element-benders or Dragon Ball Z, or psionic astral projection weirdness or penitent pacifists, etc. Warlocks can be nature witches or fiendish witches or alienists or deep summoners or occult priests etc while also being either BDSM-summoners or cheating students who smuggled the text book into the test room or even witch-knights. I love that 5e broke down the chassis of classes, broadening their scope beyond one or two power sources and combat roles. I've also tried to make this chassis way too many times in the past few decades. I think there are some good options for you above, but I would learn to let go of the chassis and recognise that each class can have multiple archetypal relationships within it. [/QUOTE]

Verification