Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7412067" data-attributes="member: 12731">I get why you could draw that conclusion.Personally, however, I'm a strong proponent of keeping D&D strongly idiosyncratic. The way d20 modern condensed classes into strong, fast and smart (or whatever the names were) is a deal-breaker for me. Again, my mileage - yours may vary.So my own ideal vision tries to create one Fighter class, with fightery customization. Then the Rogue gets a similar treatment. And so on. Smushing together classes into more generic things, like for instance meta concepts like "tank" "skill monkey" "gish" "damage dealer" and so on, aint my cuppa. I'd much rather you roll up a "Fighter" that then can be built towards any of those roles. Just like in the PHB.In fact, what 5E has done to revitalize the Fighter class cannot be understated. Thanks to 5E, any APHB would feel the pressure to be able to (roughly) replicate the core of the Eldritch Knight experience, for instance. A very healthy pressure, if you ask me, since it effectively neutralizes the bad old 3E philosophy that was "if it is cool, the fighter can't have it" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>