Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7319342">I chose &quot;Other&quot;.&nbsp; I can't possibly determine just from a list of names.&nbsp; What matters is the design space, not the title.&nbsp; So maybe you're assuming they would be similar to classes from previous editions, but I think that's a bad way to go about it.The &quot;design space&quot; I could see exploring:&nbsp;- A more animistic/primitive caster class.&nbsp; Something that encapsulates shaman and witches and witch-doctors.&nbsp;&nbsp; -INT-based, but whereas Wizards are &quot;book learned&quot; these would be more informally schooled, or self-taught.&nbsp; Mechanically I would like to see spell lists that exclude most direct damage spells, especially the flashy nukes, and maybe even make it a half-caster, then make up for it with interesting, subtle support features.&nbsp; The druid could have served this role if they had put the shapeshifting into sub-classes.&nbsp; &nbsp;- Although I detest Warlords, I have been persuaded by [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] and some others that there's room for a more flexible &quot;martial support class&quot;.&nbsp; So I could picture something that is like a fighter but less so (if that makes sense) with more room in the sub-classes to tack on interesting and flavorful abilities.&nbsp;- I've also always wanted a divine magical support class that more resembles a priest from WoW than a cleric from D&amp;D.&nbsp; While you can build such a thing, it's always a bad tradeoff.&nbsp; But this could also be solved with a cleric sub-class that had an ability or abilities that only function when no armor is worn. And that's about it.&nbsp; Looking through the list in the poll I could see almost all of them (if we are envisioning the same thing because, again, the OP just provided titles, not concepts) fitting in as subclasses of existing classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7319342"] I chose "Other". I can't possibly determine just from a list of names. What matters is the design space, not the title. So maybe you're assuming they would be similar to classes from previous editions, but I think that's a bad way to go about it. The "design space" I could see exploring: - A more animistic/primitive caster class. Something that encapsulates shaman and witches and witch-doctors. -INT-based, but whereas Wizards are "book learned" these would be more informally schooled, or self-taught. Mechanically I would like to see spell lists that exclude most direct damage spells, especially the flashy nukes, and maybe even make it a half-caster, then make up for it with interesting, subtle support features. The druid could have served this role if they had put the shapeshifting into sub-classes. - Although I detest Warlords, I have been persuaded by [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] and some others that there's room for a more flexible "martial support class". So I could picture something that is like a fighter but less so (if that makes sense) with more room in the sub-classes to tack on interesting and flavorful abilities. - I've also always wanted a divine magical support class that more resembles a priest from WoW than a cleric from D&D. While you [I]can[/I] build such a thing, it's always a bad tradeoff. But this could also be solved with a cleric sub-class that had an ability or abilities that only function when no armor is worn. And that's about it. Looking through the list in the poll I could see almost all of them (if we are envisioning the same thing because, again, the OP just provided titles, not concepts) fitting in as subclasses of existing classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification