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

[FitzTheRuke]

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

After making my above statement I just got the idea to make a dex-based fighter/trickster-domain cleric/criminal background that pkays just like a Rogue!

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Barolo]

After making my above statement I just got the idea to make a dex-based fighter/trickster-domain cleric/criminal background that pkays just like a Rogue!

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

Unfortunately for this concept, the blessing of the trickster does not work on oneself.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

If by "easy" you mean, "completely redesign how the game works".

If you make the base class literally nothing but HD and proficiencies, sure.

But even then, some proficiencies would have to come from subclass.

At which point, just establish a tradeoff where you choose what level of casting you have, HD level, and # of skills, Either in pckages balanced against eachother, or with point costs when building, and then make class features into a list, like Star Wars saga talents, but streamline the mixing by not having class talents at all, just a list, broken into conceptual groups for ease of browsing.

Could be a fun game, but it wouldn't look much like DnD.

And if it's like SWSE or any similar game I've ever seen, it will be harder to model a lot of concepts at a reasonably low level than it needs to be.

 

[TwoSix]

Q. Why do Paladin fans have pitchforks?

A. Because they are SATAN??!?!!!

You know, if you don't like Paladins, you should really just say so. I have no idea why this attack is starting right now.

 

[Barolo]

You know, if you don't like Paladins, you should really just say so. I have no idea why this attack is starting right now.

Was this comment serious?

 

[TwoSix]

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.

My personal take would be to have just a few base classes, but then a whole host of smaller classes that are only a few levels long that you can multiclass into. You can be a Wizard, or you can go Wizard into Necromancer into Lich, for example.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

Was this comment serious?

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] and my conversations are always deadly serious. We're like romantic rivals, minus the sexual tension and any amount of competitiveness.

 

[Barolo]

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] and my conversations are always deadly serious. We're like romantic rivals, minus the sexual tension and any amount of competitiveness.

But.... why so serious?

 

[TwoSix]

But.... why so serious?

Because we're spending our time arguing over the proper way to mathematically model the elves in our head. Everything is serious here.