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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7368360" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Not sure about Monk...that class is always a little weird. Probably because its like trying to fit Kwai Chang Caine from Kung Fu into <s>Ring of the Nei....Niebelunginigninegingen...gen</s> Lord of the Rings.However! Yes. I forgot about Barbarian (although I would prefer "Barbarian" to be a race and "Brute" or "Rager" to be the class...er...subclass) and Rogue. I might argue "Rogue" because of the Assassin and Acrobat types would seem to need a home that might be an odd fit in Fighter. The thief-y stuff should probably be just a matter of skill package, IMO. Maybe there's some other superclass for Monk, Assassin, and Acrobat. That might be a good place for those who buckle their swashes.Or a wonderfully improved Champion! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> hunh? hunh? amirite? Seriously, though I think some "cutting down" of specificity might help the game some. Leave room for the players to go a little nuts and do some of the lifting.Well, Rogue and Monk are on you, bub. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Though I generally agree on the historical problems with "Fighter". Death to the "Fighter", long live the "Fighter!"I thought they missed the design mark a little, as well with 5e (even though I think its one of the better editions by a long stretch). I feel like they had the great idea about three pillars and then just about ignored it entirely. Within the context of D&D, it doesn't make sense to try to balance out the classes looking at the pillars as a whole so that Class A being the best at pillar 1 means that they are necessarily one of the worst at pillars 2 and/or 3. Instead, we should have seen more distinction, like how Backgrounds only affect Interaction (for the most part).If I were to wave my magic wand... Background would stay pretty much as is, purely answering the question "Where did your character come from?" Class (and subclass, were it kept) would answer the question "How does your character contribute to a fight?" And some sort of skill-package feature...lets call it "Specialty" might answer the question "How does your character contribute in Exploration and/or Interaction?" Specialty is where "Thief" would live, but alongside "Scout", "Diplomat" and a few others. So to get a Traditional Ranger, you would need to pick "Fighter/Ranger" and "Scout". Heck, you could even go really old-school and have the Specialties each work differently, if that tested well. I know some people might object to having Specialties include things that are traditionally class features, but I think the flexibility would make up for it. I'm not 100% on the idea that there needs to be separate categories of specialty for Interaction and Exploration, because combat is just such a big deal, but that would probably be a playtesting thing. I might leave Feats where they are, capable of straddling the line. Because that is in the players' hand when available.jeez I can ramble.</blockquote>

Verification