Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 5861470" data-attributes="member: 63508">No we shouldn't make a variant class everytime we add think of a new class feature. That is precisely what modules are for.My point is that there are some archetype that would not be done just it made into a kit without making it so complicated that a new class would be better.At this point in D&amp;D, the ranger, barbarian, paladin, (and maybe even the warlord) have too much baggage to simply be made into a kit or class feature substitution. Especial since 5E/DDN is supposed to unite the various fanbases.If 5E/DDN was supposed to be a whole new, &quot;changing things up&quot; edition, that might fly as the designers would be obligated to placate every group of fans.But the barbarian/ranger/paladin/(warlord) have evolved away from being fighter sub-classes. Devolving it back seems to be adding needless risk or screwing up and pissing off a lot of people. It is better just to have them as separate classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 5861470, member: 63508"] No we shouldn't make a variant class everytime we add think of a new class feature. That is precisely what modules are for. My point is that there are some archetype that would not be done just it made into a kit without making it so complicated that a new class would be better. At this point in D&D, the ranger, barbarian, paladin, (and maybe even the warlord) have too much baggage to simply be made into a kit or class feature substitution. Especial since 5E/DDN is supposed to unite the various fanbases. If 5E/DDN was supposed to be a whole new, "changing things up" edition, that might fly as the designers would be obligated to placate every group of fans. But the barbarian/ranger/paladin/(warlord) have evolved away from being fighter sub-classes. Devolving it back seems to be adding needless risk or screwing up and pissing off a lot of people. It is better just to have them as separate classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification