Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3797171" data-attributes="member: 4937">When they killed the sacred cow of Vancian magic, almost all the other published arcane classes were turned into wizard variants in a stroke.  Sorcerer?  His schtik was he didn't have to choose his daily spells ahead of time.  Now, with Vancian magic probably 80% gone or more, for the most part neither does the Wizard.  Warlock?  His schtik was he had an unlimited number of 'spells per day'.  Now the wizard has at will blast abilities as well.  The mechanical variation between arcane classes decreases enormously when they all have 'at will', 'per encounter', and 'daily' resources.  This is the real reason for adding flavor like 'Wizardly Implements'.  You need to add in that sort of flavor to get some mechanical distinctiveness, because otherwise the classes are nothing more than very minor variations.Nothing prevents a 4e Wizard from taking the Warlocks blast shaping or enhancing abilities as well.  You could easily turn that into a talent tree.The Fighter's schtick is combat feats.  That's only as narrow of a pool as you want it to be.  I have feat trees for strong fighters (Power Attack) and agile fighters (Dodge), hardy fighters (Tough as Leather), smart fighters (Expert Tactician), canny fighters (Combat Intuition), and charismatic fighters (You can't do that to my friend!, At last we meet!).  I have feats for different sorts of weapons (Wall of Wood, Point Black Shot, Power Slam), and different sorts of fight styles (Ride by Attack, Close Quarters Combat, Improved Clinch, Distance Keeping).  I have feats for fighters that give simple bonuses (Weapon Focus) and others that break the rules (Second Wind, Roll with the Punches, Lust for Battle, Hand is Mightier than the Sword, etc.).  That's a good question.  Why should you need separate classes?  I'd never introduce samurai, knight, or swashbuckler as a class.  That's just a fighter with a particular schtick or not even that maybe.  It could be no more than flavor.  If your fighter base class can't handle minor variations like that, something is wrong with it.  And as for Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians, those are pretty shabby base classes for a different reason - they are all to narrow and setting specific.  Why can't I go into a rage if I'm a fanatical temple gaurd of a lawful organization, if I part of an elite body gaurd to the dwarven high king?  Why must the only fanatic be a chaotic wilderness dweller?  Why must the only champion of an ethical principle be lawful good?  Why must every huntsman also gain druidic spells?</blockquote>

Verification