Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheLoneRanger1979" data-source="post: 6834159" data-attributes="member: 6804148">Pretty much so. One of the critics on the spell casting as a feature is that i "blends" the classes. Like the paladin/cleric ranger/druid dichotomy. But also, as you say, some of us prefer class defining abilities to universal spell casting.Oh i .... or better yet we, have. In the old WoTC forums as well. Who could say if they listened or not, but the ranger variants as mentioned are a step in an interesting direction. If i may write in a completely honest way, there is really nothing wrong the ranger and paladin features as they are now. In fact, if there is one thing about those classes... it is their class features. But the casting? To me it feels so.... so..... "attached" to them, that i almost feel like someone got lazy half way through the design and instead of filling the blanks with more features, he/she just added spell slots and decided to be done with it. Or maybe i'm completely wrong, and it was the design goal from the start to make most classes at least half magical. The irony is, i actually preferred the last play test to the final version of these classes........I think we should distinct between a class having "magical" abilities and that same class being half defined by it. Did the paladins and ranger have some high tier spell casing in 1E? They sure did. Was it this that defined their class (especially the way it was played)? Considering how little of it they had, i think not even at higher levels, no.</blockquote>

Verification