Recent content by steeldragons

Mages - Arcane Magic Full Caster. Limitless Cantrips. Limitless Rituals. Leveled Spell Progression to top tier of 9. Arcane Magic Spell list. Swordmage (better name needed) - Arcane Magic Half-caster. Limitless Cantrips. Limited Rituals known/progression. Leveled Spell Progression, slower than...

hahaha. Nuh-no. That's not how this works. I am not the one asserting the magic system needs "a better core design" so as to include psionics within some single unified system. So, I am not the one who has to define what is meant by what you (and others) have said.

(bolding mine) Putting aside your right to be aribiter for what you consider/accept as "a rational reason," for yourself, I am very interested in hearing what the above bolded section means. I've seen this argument, in several threads (usually as refers to psionics, in some sorcerer threads...

Ok...So... Class #1: The Fighter - Strength class. Combat Expert. "Stamina/2nd Wind." Adds "Fighting Styles (weapon specializations)." Adds -and gains the most over levels- "Maneuvers." -- Class #2: Specialist ("subclass") Fighter, the Cavalier - Str. Class + Charisma. Highly trained Attack &...

Venger with Scylla and Warduke...nice.

Do you mean "for a new edition," as to be "in the PHB," as in initial publication/release? I am inclined to think 13 is your very most/top for an initial outing. I would put your "base minimum" at 7 or 8. But I think a list of 13 is probably the best. Gives you enough for people to say "Oo...

True. lol.

How many members do you expect the party to be? If it's going to be only 4, then...yeah...I don't know. 13th level still sounds high to me, but I'm not particularly familiar with the 5e "CR vs. PC level mathalizations." When I originally read the OP, I thought, "Oh, 6-8 characters around...

Ad absurdums are fun, aren't they? The answer to the majority of your "why not's" is simply, because this is D&D.

Oh? Can a Paladin fit in everyone? Can a warlock? Can a druid? Seems like, if you require "uniqueness" to feel like there's an "identity" (and I wholeheartedly disagree/refuse to accept that premise), Fighter and Wizard "fitting in everyone" meets that criteria. Pretty sure a warlock or druid...

Oh, right. I forget if one isn't "unique" then they can't possibly have an identity. Yes, yes. Everyone is "special." All tiktok and youtube channels are created equal/matter. Well, no. Your metaphor nicely sums up why there is a Fighter (white bread) and a Paladin (mac n cheese) as separate...

Pretty sure one of my posts already covered that. The Fighter uses weapons, engages/specializes in being good at combat. The Wizard uses knows about and uses magic. Those are the roles. Their "jobs," as it were. Their identity within the game...any game. Any world. That's what they do. They...

I must say, I'm kind of baffled by the perspective, it seems, was meant by the OP and understood by a good number of posters. From where I sit, the "most identity" would naturally come from the classes that have the BROADEST and (as it's been put throughout the thread) "generic" class story...

Fighter: I'm about using all the weapons and armor., none of the magic. I do the best in combat and physical challenges. Mage("Wizard"): I'm about using all the magic, none of the armor and very few weapons. I do the best with magic and intellectual challenges. Thief("Rogue"): I'm about...

Another thing that makes the Ranger necessary, is the need for more base classes/archetypes that are NOT magic-using classes. Sure, the original Ranger eventually -at "mid-high" level, I would argue. Remember how long it took to get from 1st to 8th or 9th level bitd?-could replicate some magic...