Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 7472159" data-attributes="member: 23716">To me, it is multi-classing that is the hack on top of a class based system that is more of a sore thumb; its trying to have your cake and eat it too.  As a class based system, D&D has always been an package of abilities that grows with your character, almost the antithesis of point-buy, cost based build system.  I don't think ala carte multiclass offers a satisfying resolution to this issue.  Now 5e does have the issue of a lot of overlap between different archetype than ever before, as the classes listed above are all variations of a Gish-type concept.  However, I would argue that the Paladin &--to a lesser extent--the Ranger, benefit greatly from having their own spell list and abilities tailored to their archetype and concept.   I would not categorize bargaining/selling your soul as "service or devotion", but IMHO the warlock has more overlap with the Sorcerer that hinders the concept of both classes.A really can't see it.  Monks are traditionally contemplative, wisdom focused classes that have a very different flavor and story than a traditional fantasy 'Barbarian'.  If anything, a barbarian can be a fighter sub-class/background.Most of the rest of these fall into a classic reductionist argument that could be reduced to one "Hero" class and NPCs.  It is a spectrum that can be taken too far in either direction for most people.  You can't have a (sub)class for every little thing under the sun, yet you also can't boil everything down to a couple of classes the 'cover' everything in a generic, flavorless way either.  I find it interesting that 5e tries to temper this by having classes with sub-classes to cover (minor?) variations around the class, yet as evidenced by the Hexblade/blade'lock issue, the sub-classes can only do so much and sometimes you need more.</blockquote>

Verification