Vaalingrade
Legend
They [Annoying Emoji Trend] Should [Annoying Emoji Trend] Be [Annoying Emoji Trend]!!!!!SORCERER
IS
NOT
BLOODLINES
!!!!!!
They [Annoying Emoji Trend] Should [Annoying Emoji Trend] Be [Annoying Emoji Trend]!!!!!SORCERER
IS
NOT
BLOODLINES
!!!!!!
My dentist sends their regards.It was just a suggestion.
I can imagine a Ranger subclass under both Fighter and Rogue.You could move the bard and the ranger to be subclasses of "Rogue." The ranger would cover the sneaky sniper hunter trope, and the bard could cover the stealthy magical sneak trope.
Mage + Priest + Primal -> GuySorcerer + Wizard -> Mage
Cleric + Druid -> Priest
Barbarian + Ranger -> Primal (?)
Hmmm. As of this post, the fighter, ranger, sorcerer and wizard are the only classes in double digits. Makes sense. The sorcerer and wizard are essentially slightly different stories and mechanics stapled to the same general archetype, the ranger is a cool story with no mechanical niche, and the fighter is a generic blob of swords.Hypothetically, if D&D had to reduce the number of classes, and they where going to remove the ones that has the least identity, which ones would go?
Presume the options to play the character would still be in the game somewhere, just not as a class.
I.e. Fighter gets moved under Ranger, Wizard is a Sorcerer option, ect...
Not all Clerics are "priests".Sorcerer + Wizard -> Mage
Cleric + Druid -> Priest
Barbarian + Ranger -> Primal (?)
I can imagine the Ranger as a subclass of Fighter, Rogue, Druid, even Wizard.I can imagine a Ranger subclass under both Fighter and Rogue.
The 5e Bard is the mythologically accurate one, a full caster.Same for the Bard.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.