Unpopular opinions go here

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've often said that D&D doesn't need more than four classes: Warrior, Mage, Priest, and Sneak. It would be rad if everything else was a subclass (or prestige class, or 'name level', or whatever) of one of those four.

I believe that's how Five Torches Deep does it.

 

[Celebrim]

Aragon: Fighter
Gandalf: Elf
King Arthur: Fighter
Conan: Fighter/Thief (so, Halfling)
Darth Vader: Elf
Every GoT Character: Fighter
Napoleon: French

Aragorn: Paladin. He can lay on hands.
Gandalf: Agathinon

 

[Jd Smith1]

To be fair, I said we didn't need "dozens of bespoke races." The handful of examples in the PHB is plenty, along with the framework in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.

But now that you brought it up: I've often said that D&D doesn't need more than four classes: Warrior, Mage, Priest, and Sneak. It would be rad if everything else was a subclass (or prestige class, or 'name level', or whatever) of one of those four.

Which is the great failure of D&D: no matter how much they keep adding, every PC boils down to a handful of yes/no decisions, and is identical to everyone who answered those questions the same way. No matter how many races, classes, feat, and spells they keep throwing in, the difference in PCs of the same class & level is nominal.

In D&D, you can be anything you want, provided what you want falls within the carefully defined slots available.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why not? At some point, I feel as though all the classes and subclasses will become burdensome. But since D&D is undermonetized, I envision a future where they try to sell us many as many species and (sub)classes as possible. Or maybe WotC will finally go full point buy like GURPS! GURPS still managed to sell splat books with stats for elves, halflings, orcs, etc., etc. even though the core book had rules for creating them.

I'd have said that was 1977, but then I have a bad attitude for a D&D-centric forum.

 

[J.Quondam]

Even as a dumb preteen in the early 1980s, I pretty quickly realized that the class and level system is a not an effective way to emulate characters in the stories I read.
D&D does exactly one genre well: the D&D genre.*

* And the and fantasy crpg genre, I suppose, but that came from the D&D genre.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some of the reasons I enjoy playing D&D are the Sacred Cows so many want to grind into hamburgers.

If I want roleplaying experiences without them, I play different games.

 

[aramis erak]

Ahh... well, you see the problem is that despite being the origin of the class, Aragorn is not a (D&D) Ranger. He is a (D&D) Paladin.

How's that for an unpopular opinion?

One of the few things we agree upon.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Aragorn doesn't have the paladin's healing touch, he has the King's Touch. Consider it a unique bloodline feat for the descendants of Elendil.

 

[Celebrim]

Aragorn doesn't have the paladin's healing touch, he has the King's Touch. Consider it a unique bloodline feat for the descendants of Elendil.

Perhaps, but the 'Royal Touch' is the origin of both Aragorn's healing hands and the D&D Paladin's ability to lay on hands and cure diseases. It's the same mythological/historical source material, just spun slightly differently by the two texts.

 

[deganawida]

3.0 was, IMO, better than 3.5. Maybe not design-wise, but it captured the D&D feel better than 3.5, and had less power creep. Also, the Psychic Warrior was awesome.

Again, my opinion only.