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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7368420" data-attributes="member: 996">It was more of the same, really.  It's a class that fights really well, but because it's not wearing armor, it couldn't be a fighter, and had to get all weird.  That's been long since fixed, but it doesn't seem to matter.One hoary concept in D&D goes all the way back, and that's the conviction that being able to wear any armor, strap on any shield, and use any weapon is a HUGE advantage.Think about the first 4 classes:Magic-User:  Armor?  NONE  Shield?  NONE  Weapons?  Dagger/Staff   Magic?  All of it.Cleric:  Armor:  Plate Mail!  Shield: Yes!  Weapons:  Maces &c  Magic?  No fun stuff, just Band-Aids for you, but oh, here, turn some undead.Fighter:  Armor:  Plate Mail!  Shield: Yes!  Weapons:  All the Best, including the most-found-magic-weapon of them all the Longsword!  Whoopee!  Made of awesome!Over time, the armor you wore became little more than cosmetic, everyone could maintain a decent to good AC with minimal effort, the fighter/cleric 'dependence' on heavy armor increasingly became a disadvantage.  Shields were never worth much by themselves, but magic shields used to add a lot to your AC.  That's gone.And the all-awesome, all-the-best-magical-versions Longsword?  By 3.0 just about any weapon enchantment could go on just about any weapon.The old armor/weapon/hps balancing magic & special abilities equation has been wrecked for a long time. In 5e, the fighter finally made the transition to being either DEX or STR 'based' relatively seamlessly.  An acrobat or assassin or monk fighter in light/no armor would be pretty painless to design.   Sure, that'd happen.  Nod.  Backgrounds don't only affect interaction, and class affects interaction a lot, but the idea is sound.Class:  Combat (OK, 'primarily combat') Background:  Social/Interaction (because where you come from matters to people)Exploration?I'm thinking lift a term from 2e:  Kit.Backgrounds and Classes could be drawn from what's already out there, just re-focused.   Kits would have to strongly point at the exploration-pillar, including the few sub-classes/whatever that already seem focused there, Thief & Scout plus, IDK, a Sage who /knows/ all about various environments even if he hasn't visited them before?   Nod.  That's not overthinking the Warlord, that's overthinking everything. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  It sounds like you don't want to add classes, because you'd rather overhaul the entire class system.</blockquote>

Verification