Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8011471" data-attributes="member: 18">If I understand correctly, that you think people should have to change their ideas, rather than the game being more open, then I think this is another idea of yours that is incompatible with accessibility. If you want people to find they have to adapt to a bunch of increasingly weird and grog-ish classes, rather than being able to use the ideas that they have, you're looking to have an ever-increasingly unaccessible, and ever-more out-of-touch version of D&D. Some people would love that, I'm sure, but that's what the OSR and so on is for. It's not like they're asking for unreasonable things that have never been possible in D&D, or would even be difficult to do mechanically. It is possible I misunderstand because your wording is a bit confusing though.Sorcerer was harmed by the exact reverse of this, too. Sorcerers have no real niche in 5E, as you earlier agreed, because Wizards (the class) and so on have effectively "eaten their lunch", by taking their flexibility (which helped make the Wizard class much more accessible in 5E note, it works more like pop-culture Wizards than Vancian freakshows). The right thing to have done, I would suggest would then have been to look to pop culture and see what people might expect from a class called Sorcerer, whilst retaining some of the existing flavour (like being dragon-blooded as an option and so on). They did precisely this in at least one of the playtest Sorcerers (which, by all reports here, was pretty popular, so not sure what changed there).Instead, they looked back to 3E, and created a class which was as bizarrely incapable as the 3E Sorcerer (there's no earthly explanation as to why they're worse with weapons/armour than Bards, it's not like they had to study), and had as it's whole mechanical "thing", doing 3E-style metamagic, which is again not really something anyone, not even grogs like us (title of my autobiography), would expect. They went completely within a D&D box, and created a class is basically only even okay because it's a full caster in a game where full casters are awesome. And it's easily the least awesome of them as a result.Monks have some similar issues. They're too focused on being D&D Monks. They did get away from that later, and they're not really as bad a showing as Sorcerers (and like all 4E and 5E classes*, "acceptable"), but because of that, they're too "inside the box" and the attempt at, for example, an Avatar (the cartoon) style for them is a bit of a dismal failure.Rangers again are bound by D&D chains in a bad way, as has been discussed. But you seem to be advocating for them to be bound tighter, but putting a couple of grog-y concepts into the base class for no apparent reason.Not sure what issue you have with Druids. Someone coming to D&D new but with pop culture and gaming experience of Druids isn't going to be particularly weirded out or confused by their implementation. No are they broadly OP. Moon Druid is just really OP for 2-6 and 18-20. It didn't have to be, and indeed for many levels it's kind of "meh". It's just not a very good design and not one that had to happen.* = Interesting to me that we've had two editions now where basically no classes just totally outright sucked, very much unlike 3.XE. Some are better, some are worse, but none are total junk.</blockquote>

Verification