Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="grimslade" data-source="post: 8193971" data-attributes="member: 6061">This is the crux. Currently, classes are rules and lore. In the future...?I like a class with a nice lore example. Paladins and their oaths in 5E are a good example of the crunch being supported by the fluff. Spell lists and oath abilities lead to a nice thematic whole. Warlocks and pacts are similar, but some classes are a bit weaker. The Ranger stands out as being more like a fighter subclass than its own theme. Monk is a muddled mess, the lore does not reinforce the crunch and the class feels rickety. Fun to play but every monk I have played with seems (in)different. Having reinforcing lore is a boon for players new to the game and people who want to be able to pick up and play without the huge customization/ optimization minigame. Part of the longevity of D&amp;D as a system is the class archetype.I would like there to be some advanced options for a more robust system, like Level Up is doing. There are some cool system things that were brought up during the D&amp;D Next playtest that was put aside as the rules focused. Remember the different focus items transforming wizard magic? A wand user and a tome user would have subtly different effects on the spells they cast. Some of this came through in the Warlock class, but imagine a less class defined and more about the technique employed. Maybe something that could span all spellcasters. A wand using cleric and a wand wielding sorcerer might produce a similar spell effect. There are many ways to break down the ribbons of each class and put them in a pool to choose from to create a custom character. No two characters are fully the same until the inevitable Treantmonk guide comes out and says which combination is statistically better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="grimslade, post: 8193971, member: 6061"] This is the crux. Currently, classes are rules and lore. In the future...? I like a class with a nice lore example. Paladins and their oaths in 5E are a good example of the crunch being supported by the fluff. Spell lists and oath abilities lead to a nice thematic whole. Warlocks and pacts are similar, but some classes are a bit weaker. The Ranger stands out as being more like a fighter subclass than its own theme. Monk is a muddled mess, the lore does not reinforce the crunch and the class feels rickety. Fun to play but every monk I have played with seems (in)different. Having reinforcing lore is a boon for players new to the game and people who want to be able to pick up and play without the huge customization/ optimization minigame. Part of the longevity of D&D as a system is the class archetype. I would like there to be some advanced options for a more robust system, like Level Up is doing. There are some cool system things that were brought up during the D&D Next playtest that was put aside as the rules focused. Remember the different focus items transforming wizard magic? A wand user and a tome user would have subtly different effects on the spells they cast. Some of this came through in the Warlock class, but imagine a less class defined and more about the technique employed. Maybe something that could span all spellcasters. A wand using cleric and a wand wielding sorcerer might produce a similar spell effect. There are many ways to break down the ribbons of each class and put them in a pool to choose from to create a custom character. No two characters are fully the same until the inevitable Treantmonk guide comes out and says which combination is statistically better. [/QUOTE]

Verification