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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7106340" data-attributes="member: 37579">Now, there's two ways to look at the "blow up the class" question:1) Dump everything you know of the class and start again... from scratch. Just take the name and build from there. 2) Keep everything from editions 0 through 4 and Basic and redesign the class for 5e.In the event of #2, I'd rework the fighter and the bard. The fighter needs the concepts of its subclasses redone. But there also needs to be simplicity or complexity. I'd bake the complexity into the class via a different ruleset. Have some other class feature (Action Surge perhaps) be modular with a simple version for people who just want to hit stuff and an optional variant that gives more choices for people who want that in combat. Then the subclasses don't need to carry the complexity and can be more flavourful. And the subclasses could then also be designed to add more exploration and interaction based options to the class that don't work with the base fighter. So the knight has more social skills and honour, the gladiator is more entertaining and distracting, the dreadnought just doesn't get exhausted when travelling or from physical tasks, the duelist is flamboyant and charming, etc.  (You could add this to the existing game, swapping out Extra Attack for maneuvers - which could also work for the other classes with Extra Attack - but the fighter, with more Extra Attacks, would always get more. But it's a higher level option than I'd like.)The bard just shouldn't be a full caster. That's completely at odds with the class from 1e, 2e, and 3e. Plus, as a full caster, its sacrifices a whole lot of more interesting bardic things that could be unique to the class for more spells, which are not very unique at all. Make it a half caster. And by delaying spells until 2nd level, bardic music can be better at 1st level. #1... I'd need to think on that more.</blockquote>

Verification