Expanding the forgotten classes

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey could the powers that be give a little love to the forgotten classes in PHB3 (or other sources) that haven't been expanded and expand them a little bit in any future books?

The Runepriest, Artificer, and Seeker seems like they all would have been a good fit for the Elemental book, but the Wizard gets/got more goodies.  They've been around long enough so there should be enough ideas for SOMETHING for them.

Come-on, what's up with that
When a class is not 'embraced', it tends to get little further love.  Those three classes were not embraced by the general public.  The same goes for races - the Vrylorka has almost no support at all. 
D&D & Boardgames If I have everything I need to run great games for many years without repeating stuff, why do I need to buy anything right now?
The artificer and runepriest have both been given a third build in past issues of Dragon. Okay, so there are classes with more than that (especially the martial classes), but there are others with an equal number. IIRC these include the avenger, invoker, shaman, swordmage, warden, and the three Power Point using psionic classes. The barbarian, bard, and sorcerer too, if you don't include the sub-classes in the "Heroes of..." books.

Also, there is quite a lot of content for the three classes you mention in the homebrew forum, particulaly the artificer.
When a class is not 'embraced', it tends to get little further love.  Those three classes were not embraced by the general public.  The same goes for races - the Vrylorka has almost no support at all. 


 
Shouldn't the pendulum swing the other way I think that the forums agrees that the wizard has been getting too much subclass/build love especialy with the witch and shi'ar but they still give it more.
I think all classes and races should get equal love. (hopefully 5e does this)
A) maybe more people would play them.
B) I guess because they call themselves WIZARDS of the coast, they wear their bias on their sleeve.  

Also, if you try something out in Dragon, or even better for FREE(!) and see if people like that race or class, you can either put it in print, or not...based on feedback.  That way you don't bother publishing something people aren't into, and then subsequently not further supporting something published.

Some races and classes just aren't 'cool'. A lot of people don't like psionic anything...But enough DO that psionic races and classes have made it into every edition. It seems the status quo is, was, and always will be, WIZARD, FIGHTER, CLERIC, ROGUE. (and, human, dwarf, elf, halfling) I think there should always be room for more, and once a race and class is introduced, it WILL bother some people to not bring it back in the next edition. There will always be a next edition, after all. 

I don't want to be an edition warrior. I think there was something good and something bad in all the editions I played. I do, however, believe that the game has gotten better over the years (and decades). I hope this holds true into the future.

Peace.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

In the case of the artificer, the track record with the various 'subclasses' of wizard being thinly veiled poaching of other arcane classes' concepts suggests that we'd be far more likely to get an artificer-wizard subclass than significant support for the actual artificer.
In the case of the artificer, the track record with the various 'subclasses' of wizard being thinly veiled poaching of other arcane classes' concepts suggests that we'd be far more likely to get an artificer-wizard subclass than significant support for the actual artificer.



You know it's not about that. 

These subclasses of Wizard may have story archetypes similar to other classes (mostly, similar to the Warlock), but they're important to be as forms of the Wizard because ultimately these are classes that rely on the Wizard's spell list, rather than the Warlock's or something.

The artificer has such unique spells from the Wizard that we won't see a Wizard (Artificemaster) or whatever, just like we saw subclasses of the Bard and the Sorcerer, which weren't gimped by the Wizard in those books.  Furthermore, there WAS an Elemental Warlock build – showing that the Sha'ir is a Wizard elementalist, but there are Warlocks who make pacts with elementals, just as there are Fey Warlocks and there are Witches.  It's really more about the powers than anything else – that's the same reason Bladesingers are ultimately a subclass of Wizard rather than of Swordmage.


Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

I do know it's about that.

Every one of these poacher-wizard subclasses has been introduced on the basis of "Well, it was a wizard subclass in old-E, so we have to make a wizard subclas out of it in 4E, even though other classes already exist that cover the same theme!" That each of those poacher-wizard subclasses was assigned the controller role (dubious though that assertion is in some cases) is the result of it being implemented as a wizard subclass, not because it's inherent to the theme that it MUST be a controller.

And yes, this means that the artificer-wizard is fair game - the "artificer" was a subclass of wizard back in 2E (the same rationale for the other poacher-wizard subclasses), and thus the pattern would repeat itself: "...we introduce the Artificer, a new subclass of Wizard - but it's a controller, see, unlike that other one!"

The only reason that it's unlikely to happen now is that the focus has shifted to 5E.
When a class is not 'embraced', it tends to get little further love.  Those three classes were not embraced by the general public.  The same goes for races - the Vrylorka has almost no support at all. 



To be fair it got like no support the in book it was introduced in. It has like 0 racial racial feats and while it had racial utilities...wotc went and gave those to other races too.


I mean, if you want to play undead, there's revenant...who have a rediculus amount amount of support due to mimicing other races. Not to mention there's already like 2 other ways to be a vampire.

Then you also have dragonborn with similar stats who have the most race support without having to mimic anyone.

WoTC shot vrylorka in the foot the moment they published them.
Out of curiosity, what would be the ultimate unsupported build possible in 4e? By ultimate I don't mean most effective, but rather the build that has the absolute least amount of possible options available to it.

Class?
Class Build?
Race?
Theme?
Paragon Path?
Epic Destiny?

I've the ultimate least effective build threads on char op, but nothing like this. All suggestions welcome.
Out of curiosity, what would be the ultimate unsupported build possible in 4e? By ultimate I don't mean most effective, but rather the build that has the absolute least amount of possible options available to it.

Class?
Class Build?
Race?
Theme?
Paragon Path?
Epic Destiny?

I've the ultimate least effective build threads on char op, but nothing like this. All suggestions welcome.




Class: Vampire, no feats, minimal choices, Executioner isn't far behind.
ClassBuild: Probably the Executioner builds, otherwise i'd say Archer Warlord is pretty minimal
Race: Bladeling
Theme: Any theme that wasn't in DS has no 'support'
Paragon Path: PP's dont have support...unless you mean characters they are desirable for
Epic Destiniy: See PP      
    
I think you missed my point. I'm thinking one single build, one character, that is the most unsupported combination of options. Basically the most linear, unbranching build possible.
Sign In to post comments