Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 5977822" data-attributes="member: 54843">My answer is that it should only be a class if it can have unique enough mechanics to differentiate it from any other class. So a "berserker" theme could let you rage a few times a day, but probably couldn't handle the full stamina-point system I've outlined here; that requires a full class write up.Similarly, if a ranger or paladin is basically a fighter, rogue, or cleric with the right theme/background, it doesn't deserve to be a class... It's up to wotc to come up with compelling and unique enough game mechanics to make each of those classes fun to play mechanically and clearly differentiated from other classes.As for the complaints that this class is too complex for those who want a simple brute character... If we assume that every class is defined by its special abilities (including spells), this model would actually seem to reduce the amount of bookkeeping. You have to keep track of exactly one extra number, stamina points; even the "simple" fighter in the play test has to keep track of surges per day. This model also lets the player determine where and how he/she wants complexity added.</blockquote>