Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ArwensDaughter" data-source="post: 7320032" data-attributes="member: 6804968">I voted for Artificer, Alchemist, and Mystic.&nbsp; The rest felt to me like they could work with existing subclasses.&nbsp; (Although I'm interested in hearing more about how shaman is distinct; I skipped 2e, 3e, and 4e, so I have no point of reference in D&amp;D terms for Shaman)I thought the UA artificer was interesting but problematic.&nbsp; I thought the mechanical &quot;familiar&quot; should have been a subclass feature.&nbsp; I think 3 subclasses would be better:&nbsp; gunsmith, alchemist, tinkerer.&nbsp; That would mean moving a lot of the base class features into subclasses and coming up with different base class features.&nbsp; But I think there is design space for those concepts and they might be best grouped together as &quot;arcane inventer&quot; or the like.I thought the Mystic/Psionic systems was interesting but complicated.&nbsp; But I also saw how it filled a niche not otherwise filled. (If it ever comes to pass, I could see mystic/psionic subclasses for a lot of the base classes, too.)&nbsp; I know there's some conflict about the conflation of Mystic and Psionic, and I'm aware I don't know all the history there.&nbsp; Personally I'm not worried about what it is called, and not necessarily opposed to to different classes/systems if they are distinct enough.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ArwensDaughter, post: 7320032, member: 6804968"] I voted for Artificer, Alchemist, and Mystic. The rest felt to me like they could work with existing subclasses. (Although I'm interested in hearing more about how shaman is distinct; I skipped 2e, 3e, and 4e, so I have no point of reference in D&D terms for Shaman) I thought the UA artificer was interesting but problematic. I thought the mechanical "familiar" should have been a subclass feature. I think 3 subclasses would be better: gunsmith, alchemist, tinkerer. That would mean moving a lot of the base class features into subclasses and coming up with different base class features. But I think there is design space for those concepts and they might be best grouped together as "arcane inventer" or the like. I thought the Mystic/Psionic systems was interesting but complicated. But I also saw how it filled a niche not otherwise filled. (If it ever comes to pass, I could see mystic/psionic subclasses for a lot of the base classes, too.) I know there's some conflict about the conflation of Mystic and Psionic, and I'm aware I don't know all the history there. Personally I'm not worried about what it is called, and not necessarily opposed to to different classes/systems if they are distinct enough. [/QUOTE]

Verification