Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8007695" data-attributes="member: 18">Is this a joke? Because no. Even between all three books we don't have as many Subclasses as Xanathars, let alone Feats, Magic Items, Spells, and useful rules. I strongly suspect we also don't have as many new monsters as Volo's.I never thought Crawford was in any way dumb, but if believes they have hit "most of the big archetypal options" already, when they don't even have any psionics, let alone a bunch of other stuff, he's a bit of a fool.Not trying to dunk on your wife here, but one person liking a bad subclass doesn't magically make it not a bad subclass. I truly loved the 2E Mystic, right down to the ridiculous candles. But even I can accept it was a goddamn terrible class.The issue with 5E is that the base classes for most classes (including 5E) are so well done, that even a godawful subclass can't ruin most of them. And Crown Oath is merely kinda bad, not godawful (hello Purple Dragon Knight).This is the big problem with criticising subclasses in general. Most of them can be carried by their main class, and then people are like "Well the Warlock in my game didn't suck even though he chose [insert terrible patron and pact]!". And it's like yeah, of course he didn't he's a Warlock. He could just take EB and Agonizing Blast and y'know entirely forget about all his other abilities entirely and he still "wouldn't suck".</blockquote>