Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6019713" data-attributes="member: 2067">I actually completely agree.The issue is that some folks don't want that difference. Or they want a DIFFERENT difference. Or they don't like the difference tethered to the archetype they want to play. So while I like it, I'm not sure it's something I'd want to inflict on everyone who plays D&D as a prerequisite for playing the game. Some people LOVED the unified structure of classes, and retaining that should be an option for those DMs, too. Others LOVED fighter dailies or wizard at-wills and want those things in 5e, too. I don't think there's any inflexible design rule to deny them this. Much like how a wizard might come pre-packaged with a Scholar background and a Magic-User Specialty and certain weapon/armor proficiencies, they could ALSO come pre-packaged with Daily ability use. But that shouldn't be an inflexible part of the class, IMO. It rules out people who love spamming Magic Missile who don't want to play a Warlock to get that vibe. And that's legit. I like classes that play differently, but nova capacity and reliability and such probably shouldn't be tied to the class in one inflexible way, because then you get people who don't want to play the class IN THAT WAY, and the class needs to be able to be played otherwise, too.</blockquote>