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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 5998813" data-attributes="member: 55966">All editions had classes that could have just as easily been handled by tweaking an existing class, but it really only became annoying with 3e when the introduced a modular mechanic for tweaking classes (feats) and gave us a plethora of classes anyway.   In fact, the sorcerer and the wizard were almost exactly the same class, and you could have put a sidebar in the wizard saying (don't like memorizing set spells?  Then just allow them to cast spontaneously from their spells known, and limit their spells known to the number of spell slots).4e was probably the worst for unnecessary classes though.  There was only really 4 classes in 4e, striker, leader, controller and defender.   There was lots of variation in play, but that was because of the particulars of powers, not because the classes were really distinct from each other.   The shaman could have been a variation of cleric or druid, the executioner assassin a build like cunning sneak or artful dodger.   In fact, 4e could be vastly simplified if they removed the redundancies, took off the artificial restrictions on the powers, and just let people build characters by selecting powers.   So by choosing a lot of melee weapons and melee attack powers, you can call that character a fighting man.   If you choose a lot of ranged magic attacks that do high damage, you are a sorcerer etc.    The class abilities can all be done with a pool of starting feats, redo the powers so that they are more flexible to grab(ie. + highest ability score instead of +Cha) and more refluffing friendly (these arrows can do the damage type of your choice instead of weapon damage).   If you do that, you have a power-buy system that will play almost exacltly like 4e, but will be different enough that you won't get in trouble with the GSL.</blockquote>

Verification