Search results

I actually use a houserule that tries to address this at both ends, because I think you go from too few to too many HP as you rise in level. The gist of it is that you gain your per-level bonus at 1st, but for levels after 1st you can either roll your full HD as normal or you can roll for the...

Oh, what a surprise. A combative post from you instead of just contributing to the topic with your general thoughts like everyone else. I'm not going to waste time justifying my perception to you to allow you to lure me into an argument about it.

5th edition does a lot of things right. Curious to hear what peoples' biggest issues are with it. 1. HP scaling is an issue as I think you start with too few and end up with too many. The should have normalized starting HP and per level growth a bit better. 2. Subclasses are great, but I...

I think my issue with this is that vision could easily be accomplished by a MC cleric or a paladin, but a less gygaxian (or even conceptually broader) priest can't be accomplished through any official means - it requires heavy reflavoring or a homebrew class, and I find that to be a weakness...

I kind of agree with this also. Even though I sometimes pick on them, in my view, the paladin has less of a design/vision problem than the cleric does. They keep designing the cleric around the historial 1st edition idea of a cleric when, for at least 3 editions now, they've really needed to...

QFT. Which is why the "nothing but subclasses" mantra lots of people are rolling with is ill-founded - it feels arbitrary and needlessly pigeonholing. The fact that it limits multiclass concepts and causes bloat and analysis paralysis within a chosen class are just extra salt on the wound.

I would agree with this if classes were primarily designed around mechanics, but they aren't - they're primarily designed around fantasy themes. This makes things a lot more complex. The truth is this is a very MMO way of looking at class design; it's not that compatible with pnp D&D.

That's funny. the topic of "too many subclasses" has been talked to death in another thread. A lot of people for some reason see "class bloat" as a problem but not "subclass bloat". This is kind of nonsensical since it's kind of easier to parse classes and remove options you don't want players...

Really? That's funny. All I remember is you bombing into the thread with a ton of baggage and eye-rolling attempts at condescension. You literally attacked me personally in your first post without even understanding my argument and without me attacking anyone beforehand. You have issues with...

I have a response to all of this; I just need a bit to write it up since I'm traveling.

It's quite a leap to suggest I'm besmirching his character. In fact, I could argue that accusing me of that is besmirching mine to distract from from the actual discussion.

Yeah but if you can't come up with coherent arguments that justify your disagreement and instead resort to hyperbole, strawmen, appeals to authority/history, red herrings, or slippery slopes, don't act surprised when I don't really accept your disagreement. Because it would require overhauling...

It is, actually. As I said, though, it doesn't even matter. If Crawford thought they would lose money on psionics, what was the point of developing a whole class for UA to begin with? This argument simply doesn't hold much water. If Crawford thought psionics struggled in previous editions, that...

This is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making. But, to bite anyway, I wouldn't put so much confidence in his knowledge on this. This is what we call the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

I would actually argue with Crawford himself on this. If psionics doesn't get used enough to justify its development, there's a legacy problem there that WotC has the ability to actually solve for 5e, and they shouldn't cop out of it. They never really position it in such a way where it would...

It seems to be that the slippery slope fallacy is at the heart of the argument of those who are disagreeing, which is something I've addressed numerous times in this thread. The changes made to the core system for 5e are enough to almost entirely eliminate the possibility of the type of bloat...

All I'll say is this - clerics absolutely should have been conceptually reimagined in this edition much more than they were. This was a huge missed opportunity. They really were designed in a way that's too specific to a particular notion of what a cleric is and the concept should have been...

You're frustrated because you are emotionally invested in the idea that I'm somehow wrong when you have no good arguments to demonstrate how without resorting to strawmen, so you just continue trying to condescend and attack my personality instead. Everyone on your side of this debate is doing...

Indeed. This is the problem with using popularity contests for all of your decision making. There's a heavy status quo bias among the population at large regardless of how irrational the idea behind the status quo is.

Yes and every single one of your reasons is basically "I disagree it's needed as a class so it shouldn't be a class." That's not an argument - it doesn't really give me anything to rationally respond to, so I've given up on you. As for class bloat - I already stated that's a mostly irrational...