Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5881729" data-attributes="member: 53980">I have no issues with nonstandard character types. However, they should not be the default.You, yourself, admit that most people aren't likely to want to play a coin toss class. If the cleric is a coin toss class, then players are potentially burdened with undesired mechanics either for the sake of story (they want to play a priest archetype) or for the sake of other mechanics (the party wants a healer). That's just going back to the "no one wants to play the cleric but every group needs one" issue that was fairly prevalent for the first three editions.Now, if you want to design a non-standard class around non-standard mechanics, such as a Gambler class, I'm all for it. Even a non-standard variant of a standard class, such as a Priest of the god of gambling, is fine. Or having optional abilities that leverage a greater amount of luck (such as a more powerful spell you can memorize that only works 50% of the time) might be okay, though there's a risk that it will lead to a rocket tag style of play that I dislike.I just don't think it's a great idea for the default kernel. Some variation is to be admittedly desired. There's an argument to be made to the effect that 4e made classes too alike. However, that doesn't mean that one needs to leap over the other side of the boat and design a primary class whose core abilities only have a 30% chance of success.</blockquote>