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: 5998939" data-attributes="member: 55966">In a single sentence?  Swap out your fighter fighting styles and add in the paladin speciality.   That's what you are pretty much doing if the paladin doesn't have a unique mechanic anyway.    All the class would be is something that instead of having a fighting style, has holy smiting powers and a bit of healing instead.Plus, like someone else said, that cuts both ways.  What if I want to take ranger as a speciality if I'm a wizard?   I can imagine a character concept where a wizard is a sentinel on the edge of some fey woods.   I can't do it if the ranger is a class instead of a speciality/without clumsy multiclassing.Then you have other classes.  What if I want to play a priest of Odin who casts and inscribes runes (I'd call that class the Runepriest) but also is a sharpshooter?   What if I also want to play a mage that specializes in creating magic items but is also a sharpshooter?   Where is my artificer class?For some people not having feats and skills is a deal breaker. too, even though they provide flavor and customization.  You can still though, run a perfectly good D&D game without them.That said, I don't have problem with the existence of Rangers, Paladins, Bards, Assassins etc. as classes.   I just have two assertions:1) A flexible enough basic core game can handle the flavour of those classes without actually needing classes, with backgrounds and specialities doing almost all of the work that a new class used to do.2) As we pretty much have our bases covered to make a pure representation of that class, we can have a full basic game ready and playtested before we worry about making unique class mechanics for Rangers, Paladins, Artificers and what not.  Why have a class that looks like a subclass when you can have a new class that is interesting?</blockquote>

Verification