D&D 5E Class Inclusion Criteria (general discussion)

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Dude. By presenting your strawman, you are clearly making an implicit ad hominem argument by presenting a false dichotomy. These types of reductio ad absurdum arguments only belittle and demean those who, in good faith, are serving to logically assert their positions. Moreover, you are also trying to get the reader to infer an argumentum ad vercundium without first establishing your necessary bona fides.

Your meta-argument FAILS, even moreso by attempting to inject HUMOR and LEVITY in a topic that is super serious.

*ahem* I believe you meant "super cereal".

 

[Barolo]

(...)

At least 4e river nomad Halflings had a culture that wasn't just "happy small humans". Those Halflings, I could stand.

(...)

How about the carnivorous hunting dwellers of Athas that actually perceive other sentient beings as potential food?

 

[tuxgeo]

. . . Your meta-argument FAILS, even moreso by attempting to inject HUMOR and LEVITY [in] into a topic that is super serious.

Changed "in" to its alternative form "into," in order to accord with the verb "inject," in order to represent the transmittal of the HUMOR and LEVITY from outside the topic into it, rather than "injecting" it while it's already inside the formerly "super serious" topic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How about the carnivorous hunting dwellers of Athas that actually perceive other sentient beings as potential food?

They are fine, although I don't personally think the cannibalism really adds anything, it also is perfectly fine as part of the culture. The jungle dwelling tribal culture is an interesting take, though.

I also liked the Halfling writeup in the 4e preview books, and I like Kender for the most part. I think people dislike them bc they had dbag players use a Kender character to be disruptive.

Eberron Halflings are cool, too.

But my thing is, all of those could have either been gnomes, or a new race. Nothing about he standard Halfling is interesting, IMO.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So you think a fighter-cleric looks like a paladin? Thematically and mechanically? Fighter-clerics do the things a paladin does? That's your take?

Well, my tongue was firmly in-cheek, but... sort of?

Dualazi described my view back a few posts pretty well.

The point is, more mechanically than thematically, because you can pretty much apply any theme to a mechanical chassis that is appropriate.

Part of it is that "Fighters" don't really have a thematic identity. They have TONS.

But, sure, if you want a Paladin, a Knight in heavy armor with a code of honor (role-play) that can cast some divine spells, smite (currently spells), lay-on-hands (story-wise same as Cure Wounds. You touch 'em, they get better)... How is that not a Fighter/Cleric?

How could you make a Fighter/Cleroc that DOESN'T seem like a Paladin? (Okay, I could do it, but I'm good at refluffing.)

But I am not really advocating "get rid of the Paladin!" Paladin fans can put down their pitchforks. I'm just saying it would be really easy to make the archetype without the class existing. Even easier if a good subclass were built for it.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

But, sure, if you want a Paladin, a Knight in heavy armor with a code of honor (role-play) that can cast some divine spells, smite (currently spells), lay-on-hands (story-wise same as Cure Wounds. You touch 'em, they get better)... How is that not a Fighter/Cleric?

Funny enough, you don't even need a F/C. Last year I played a fighter with the acolyte background and magic initiate feat (would have done ritual magic feat later but he died...) and pretty much accomplished the same theme

 

[Barolo]

(...)

But I am not really advocating "get rid of the Paladin!" Paladin fans can put down their pitchforks. I'm just saying it would be really easy to make the archetype without the class existing. Even easier if a good subclass were built for it.

(...)

I wouldn't mind myself if rangers, paladins and berserkers were all subclasses of the fighter, although in this case, the base chassis would need some adjustments to accommodate more features in the subclasses. I guess I would even like the design better.

 

[Sacrosanct]

To be honest? With the way 5e uses subclasses, backgrounds, and feats? I would be totally happy with just 3 core classes: martial, magic, and utility (fighter, magic user, rogue). Because between the various subclasses, backgrounds, and feats, you can nearly replicate every previous class with just that. Sure, you'd have to make subclasses and backgrounds more robust mechanically, but that's easy.