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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dirklancer" data-source="post: 5992635" data-attributes="member: 61013">Sorry if someone mentioned this in another thread, but I wanted to get some other thoughts on what I was pondering with the new playtest packet.First off, I am in the camp of really enjoying the overall direction of 5E, and the character creation rules only helped to reinforce that. I really like the additions of the backgrounds and specialties, and it somehow manages to have depth but remain simple at the same time. But as I was making up some test characters with the new rules, something occured to me. Are classes other than the basic four going to suffer or even be necessary with backgrounds and specialties in place?I made up a fighter last night based on a ranger character I had played in a long running campaign, and with the Dual Wielder specialty and a homebrew Wildlander background (Animal Handling, Natural Lore, and Stealth as skills and a Forrage trait that allows the character to find food by spending time in places with sufficient plant and animal life), as well as Sharpshooter theme, I had recreated him pretty well. Once we know more about multiclassing, a level or two of cleric or driud and I have a solid ranger right there. I think you could easily make up a good paladin with a priest or fighter and the right mix of background or specialties, and an assassin would be simple for a rogue.Truth be told, a lot of the classes outside the core four are just hybrids anyway, allowing you to get a mix of powers and abilities without having to multiclass. And some are just variations in theme of one of the core four (druid/cleric, wizard/sorcerer). But do you think backgrounds and specialities will take away the uniqueness of the other classes? Or do you think some of the other classes are even necessary as separate entities, or would they be better handled as specialties?</blockquote>

Verification