Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5815864" data-attributes="member: 56189">I've never really liked the idea of classes. I know it's a D&Dism but I feel I can like D&D and still not like some aspects of it and this is one of my biggest dislikes.The primary reason I dislike it so much is that it feels like an intrusion upon my freedom to take the character where I want to go with it. It's an artificial limitation that doesn't stop at the character sheet and instead seeps into every aspect of play so that I constantly feel restricted in what I do with the character.And yet, of course, without classes people would probably clamour that it "isn't D&D". But what exactly IS a class? Do classes have to be a strait-jacket? Or can they simply be a leaning towards certain aspects of character development?In reference to the thread title, it occurred to me whilst playing Skyrim that the concept of classes could cater to BOTH sides of the argument for and against classes. The idea was spurred by the Guardian Stones in Skyrim where you can choose a 'thief', 'mage' or 'warrior' stone and the effect it grants is to speed your learning of skills specific to those roles.With the whole "we want to cater to everyone" schtick of DDN, I felt this was a grand opportunity to create classes in a similar vein. Instead of saying, "This is what a fighter is, and this is what the character can and can't do from now on," why not simply say, "As a fighter, the character gains bonuses to certain fightery-type things and will always do better in those things than others, but is not restricted to those things."Anyway, it was just food for thought and something I'd very much like to see implemented in DDN so I thought I'd speak up about it.</blockquote>

Verification