Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9737374" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No, not really, because (as this very post shows), some folks want A, and some folks want Not-A, and some folks want "a thing that manages to be even more Not-A than the previous thing".I want more classes with well-defined thematic purposes (I have a specific set of exactly 12 classes which I believe 5e has missed, though some of them I recognize as being...let's say "less mandatory" than others), which would have a relatively constrained but usable number of subclasses--probably on the order of 5-6 per class, for a total of somewhere between 100 and 150 subclasses for the entire game.You want fewer classes, presumably down to the level of like 4-5, where each gets a bunch of specializations, far far more than we currently have. I have reasons for not liking this, but for the moment that is not my focus here. The point being, I imagine you and I agree more or less on the rough number (somewhere in the 90-150 range), but you want the "trunks" reduced and the "leaves" increased, while I want the "trunks" increased and the "leaves" decreased.And then we have other people who hate BOTH the number of classes AND the number of subclasses. They want everything reduced. At least with you and I, it would theoretically be possible to find some happy medium where everything I want covered and everything you want covered still happens--probably more classes than you'd like, but fewer than I'd like. But for them? How could we achieve that? How could we possibly produce something that has just...flatly less of everything, while also having more?</blockquote>

Verification