So what's your opinion?
In the shared marketed experience of D&D today, is there a strong argument to add a new class to replicate a fantasy archetype that would be considered normal within the game but it either poorly or not replicated by the current rules?
Basically...
If there was a new Player's Handbook and it included a new class (other than the Artificer), do you think you would be able to say something like "Well you know what? This new class works better than what we were doing with the current rules and variant to play this popular fantasy character archetype?"
Personally, I could make a strong argument for about 3 new classes and 3 weaker arguments for 3 more if the classes' designers are both imaginative and careful.
The classes with the strongest arguments to me are:
In the shared marketed experience of D&D today, is there a strong argument to add a new class to replicate a fantasy archetype that would be considered normal within the game but it either poorly or not replicated by the current rules?
Basically...
If there was a new Player's Handbook and it included a new class (other than the Artificer), do you think you would be able to say something like "Well you know what? This new class works better than what we were doing with the current rules and variant to play this popular fantasy character archetype?"
Personally, I could make a strong argument for about 3 new classes and 3 weaker arguments for 3 more if the classes' designers are both imaginative and careful.
The classes with the strongest arguments to me are:
- The nonmagical Fighter/Rogue class
- The Fighter/Wizard half caster class
- The non-spellcasting Weapons Warlock/Super Soldier class
Last edited: