Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5868461" data-attributes="member: 82106">Warden and Shaman in 4e are quite cool. Avenger seems to have proven to be a reasonably popular concept, though I wasn't that excited by it personally. Invoker was kind of cool, but might not really warrant a full class. Runepriest and Seeker were both cool concepts. Honestly I wasn't that thrilled with any of the psionic classes, though the concepts of a telempath and a body-control expert are fairly solid. Hexblade worked out pretty nicely too.I'm not entirely sure which of these really need to be full classes, but I'm sure SOME of them should be. Kind of depends on how classes are structured in 5e. Some sort of 'gish' seems like maybe a possibility too, but is more marginal from the standpoint of class vs some sort of MC of fighter/wizard.Honestly I thought most of the later 3e classes were kind of marginal as full classes. Still, some sort of 'spellthief' type concept would be worth a look. Beyond that there are others that are marginally possible as full class concepts, depending. I'd put necromancers in that category, artificers, maybe a couple others I haven't thought of. In general though I'm more in favor of sub-classes for most variants of that ilk. Again, we'll have to see at least the core rules before it is possible to tell just how broad a class can be.</blockquote>