Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="QuietBrowser" data-source="post: 7329010" data-attributes="member: 6855057">Now, I don't have any particular horses in this race, and I haven't had a chance to read through the thread yet, but here's why I suspect people are arguing for this idea, on the basis of my own opinions:Firstly, it's a natural extension of 5e's &quot;let's simplify everything&quot; philosophy. I know that the original class-setup was Fighting Man/Magic User/Thief, but Fighter/Healer/Mage/Thief is a strong, archetypical quartet that neatly covers all of the essential roles - that's why 4e came up with the Roles paradigm based on Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker.Secondly, 5e's strong subclass mechanic has earned a lot of fans, who argue that it can really work to refine broader archetypes. This leads into point #3: many people feel that certain classes just don't have the thematic and/or mechanical &quot;gravitas&quot; to really warrant a seperate existence.For example, the Ranger; thematically, it's... not exactly great. It's a fighter with a particular adeptness for the wilderness; even its traditional spellcasting was intended to represent less &quot;spells&quot; and more &quot;wilderness lore and herbal abilities&quot;, just piggybacking on the spell mechanics. The 5e version also isn't particularly strong, mechanically, to the point that many fans complained about the release of the Scout subclasses for Fighter &amp; Rogue being able to do the Ranger's job far better.Likewise, the Sorcerer; strong theme as a character &quot;born to magic&quot;, but mechanically it's very underwhelming. When a &quot;generalist&quot; wizard subclass can blow you out of the water thematically without even trying, you're clearly not so well designed.So, some might view that just officially reverting to the four &quot;base classes&quot; and relying on subclasses for further niches is a way to achieve greater mechanical strength.Personally, I don't buy the argument for condensing. Do I think 5e has actually wrecked a lot of classes that were really strong in 4e? Yes, I do; the ranger and the sorcerer in particular are pathetic by comparison, and I want to rattle some skulls for the loss of the swordmage. I don't think that condensing down to four classes will solve that problem; I'd rather that classes were just built more strongly in general.I will confess that 5e has my respect for finally doing a strong Arcane Necromancer class, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="QuietBrowser, post: 7329010, member: 6855057"] Now, I don't have any particular horses in this race, and I haven't had a chance to read through the thread yet, but here's why I suspect people are arguing for this idea, on the basis of my own opinions: Firstly, it's a natural extension of 5e's "let's simplify everything" philosophy. I know that the original class-setup was Fighting Man/Magic User/Thief, but Fighter/Healer/Mage/Thief is a strong, archetypical quartet that neatly covers all of the essential roles - that's why 4e came up with the Roles paradigm based on Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker. Secondly, 5e's strong subclass mechanic has earned a lot of fans, who argue that it can really work to refine broader archetypes. This leads into point #3: many people feel that certain classes just don't have the thematic and/or mechanical "gravitas" to really warrant a seperate existence. For example, the Ranger; thematically, it's... not exactly great. It's a fighter with a particular adeptness for the wilderness; even its traditional spellcasting was intended to represent less "spells" and more "wilderness lore and herbal abilities", just piggybacking on the spell mechanics. The 5e version also isn't particularly strong, mechanically, to the point that many fans complained about the release of the Scout subclasses for Fighter & Rogue being able to do the Ranger's job far better. Likewise, the Sorcerer; strong theme as a character "born to magic", but mechanically it's very underwhelming. When a "generalist" wizard subclass can blow you out of the water thematically without even trying, you're clearly not so well designed. So, some might view that just officially reverting to the four "base classes" and relying on subclasses for further niches is a way to achieve greater mechanical strength. Personally, I don't buy the argument for condensing. Do I think 5e has actually wrecked a lot of classes that were really strong in 4e? Yes, I do; the ranger and the sorcerer in particular are pathetic by comparison, and I want to rattle some skulls for the loss of the swordmage. I don't think that condensing down to four classes will solve that problem; I'd rather that classes were just built more strongly in general. I will confess that 5e has my respect for finally doing a strong Arcane Necromancer class, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification