Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7558560" data-attributes="member: 6795602"><p>I can't speak for everyone so I'll just speak for myself. So here's the deal, as long as the class mechanics mostly make sense for the concept I'm trying to emulate then I'm happy. Take the 5e Champion Fighter. I can play him as a raging member of a primitive tribe (basically a barbarian). I can play him as a devout knight in shining armor (basically a paladin). I can even play him as someone that gets hired to stealthily kill NPC's (basically an assassin). I can play him as a wanderer that goes around singing songs (basically a bard without spells). However, there's just as many concepts that the fighter's class mechanics just don't make sense for. For example no one can take the champion fighter and roleplay him like he is a wizard because no matter how they roleplay, the character can't do anything remotely wizard like. </p><p></p><p>Hopefully that's enough to put an end to the rather offensive notion you posted above, the notion where you classify those that want a class to enable their desired playstyles and concepts as people that are not happy to roleplay without some video-game-esque special move. </p><p></p><p>With that out of the way, Let's talk about the current state of the 5e game. 5e is a game where classes essentially get video-game-esque special moves and so players don't have to solely rely on roleplaying to fulfill their character concepts. Now we could have a side discussion on whether a system built that way is actually good or bad, but whether or not it's good or bad, 5e is already set up that way and also already has quite a few very redundant classes that were conceived of for the sole purpose of adding in new video-game-esque special moves that weren't currently in the game. (**Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin i'm looking at you**). Heck, they essentially are doing that very thing on a smaller scale with subclasses at the moment. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So after, thinking about the current state of the 5e game (even the core non-optional game) I don't think any of the evidence actually supports your (1) or (2). In fact I'd say it supports the opposite. They keep adding subclasses into the game, they started the game out with classes that covered conceptual space already covered by another classes and differed just in the video-game-esque special moves they got. To me that indicates that (1) they want players of the base non-optional game to be able to realize fairly specific character concepts and (2) they model those concepts mechanically for their players instead of just leaving such things for the players to roleplay.</p><p></p><p>So I very much think the non-optional game is intended for exactly the kind of people you describe as it not being for. I think pointing them toward 3.5e and pathfinder does a disservice to them because wanting a close approximation of a class concept and playstyle doesn't entail wanting granularity coupled with millions of options. As I said before, I can't speak for everyone else, but I most certainly don't like 3.5e and pathfinder and don't want 5e to be like them. Nor is any of my suggestions ever an attempt to make it anything like either of those games.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7558560, member: 6795602"] I can't speak for everyone so I'll just speak for myself. So here's the deal, as long as the class mechanics mostly make sense for the concept I'm trying to emulate then I'm happy. Take the 5e Champion Fighter. I can play him as a raging member of a primitive tribe (basically a barbarian). I can play him as a devout knight in shining armor (basically a paladin). I can even play him as someone that gets hired to stealthily kill NPC's (basically an assassin). I can play him as a wanderer that goes around singing songs (basically a bard without spells). However, there's just as many concepts that the fighter's class mechanics just don't make sense for. For example no one can take the champion fighter and roleplay him like he is a wizard because no matter how they roleplay, the character can't do anything remotely wizard like. Hopefully that's enough to put an end to the rather offensive notion you posted above, the notion where you classify those that want a class to enable their desired playstyles and concepts as people that are not happy to roleplay without some video-game-esque special move. With that out of the way, Let's talk about the current state of the 5e game. 5e is a game where classes essentially get video-game-esque special moves and so players don't have to solely rely on roleplaying to fulfill their character concepts. Now we could have a side discussion on whether a system built that way is actually good or bad, but whether or not it's good or bad, 5e is already set up that way and also already has quite a few very redundant classes that were conceived of for the sole purpose of adding in new video-game-esque special moves that weren't currently in the game. (**Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin i'm looking at you**). Heck, they essentially are doing that very thing on a smaller scale with subclasses at the moment. So after, thinking about the current state of the 5e game (even the core non-optional game) I don't think any of the evidence actually supports your (1) or (2). In fact I'd say it supports the opposite. They keep adding subclasses into the game, they started the game out with classes that covered conceptual space already covered by another classes and differed just in the video-game-esque special moves they got. To me that indicates that (1) they want players of the base non-optional game to be able to realize fairly specific character concepts and (2) they model those concepts mechanically for their players instead of just leaving such things for the players to roleplay. So I very much think the non-optional game is intended for exactly the kind of people you describe as it not being for. I think pointing them toward 3.5e and pathfinder does a disservice to them because wanting a close approximation of a class concept and playstyle doesn't entail wanting granularity coupled with millions of options. As I said before, I can't speak for everyone else, but I most certainly don't like 3.5e and pathfinder and don't want 5e to be like them. Nor is any of my suggestions ever an attempt to make it anything like either of those games. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid
Top