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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aristotle" data-source="post: 4040697" data-attributes="member: 5885">First. I think a middle option would cloud things, in my experience everyone but the extremists vote for the middle when it exists. I wanted numbers representing the extreme that folks would most willingly accept, or want the game to strive for, knowing that in the end the middle is where the two sides will have to meet.That said. I'm pretty neutral. I don't feel the need to include every class that gets published. I also don't agree that having more classes slows down game play or makes the game harder to run or understand, so long as they all make use of common core mechanics. I do however have a slight issue with an abundance of classes I don't want taking up precious page count in every book I buy. I hope to see that trend slow down a little.I like the idea of a generic class, as I feel it gives me more options, but its possible that supporting mechanics for multiclassing will keep options open. For instance, if my Wizard character can take class training in Illusionist, Necromancer, and Sorcerer to represent dabbling in other magical fields, I'll be more apt to except limitations on the core class as it allows me to play a wider character concept that hasn't been very viable for me in previous editions/systems.For now I personnaly vote for lower granularity, with the knowledge that I'll have to accept middle ground and the ability to accept that reality so long as things don't slide too heavily to the high granularity side of the scale.</blockquote>

Verification