Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lutecius" data-source="post: 4066027" data-attributes="member: 60332">have you read all the previous posts? :\ because doing what you said, you would end up with something that has a lot of extra baggage you might not want (do you mean leader type as in Cleric? Warlord? does every bard player want to be a sneakbackstabbing Rogue by default?) and does not begin to cover what you might want (how do I simulate charisma-based song magic? where do I find a spell list based on enchantments rather than clericky things, infernalpacty things or goldenwyverny schools) Is there a base class that has the necessary number of free skills to be a skill monkey anyway?Assuming you can just dip into other classes (like has been mentioned in previews) AND find exactly what you need, what level of a class you did not want to play should you be to get enough feats to play a bard?Again I am all for generic classes or even a classless system but D&D as is just does not work that way.and by that logic, other existing and previewed classes have even less flavor of their own and less mechanical reasons to exist.What I really think, is that they didn't want less but more classes. otherwise the PHBI classes would be more generic and there would be means to rebuild the old bard (none of which has been hinted in the previews). I am sure the bard, druid and sorcerer have just been put off to sell the next PHBs.</blockquote>