Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6125556" data-attributes="member: 2067">There's a bit of a give-and-take here, with regards to the titles we put on bags of mechanics, though. We do need to signal to people interested in being a archetypal gladiator (for the same values of "archetypal" as any class in D&D) that this is something they'd be interested in, because that's what it's designed to be. It's sort of the "assassin" problem. Anyone can be paid money to kill someone, but an "assassin" is a D&D archetype to track towards, too: a poison-using silent killer who murders people before they're even aware that there is anyone there. We can have lots of mechanics that get at that, though, from a background that gives one proficiency in poison use to a specialty that focuses on stealth to a subclass that maximizes damage during a surprise round. We don't need one thing bearing the weight of all of that, and making it interchangeable makes it able to be disassembled by people who want just a bit of A or B.With you so far....and you've lost me. That third thing isn't dramatically different than those first things. The design choices need to be made to enable DMs to make their own design choices. Every DM who plays 5e should be playing their own version of the game. To use the CRPG analogy, 5e needs to be the hardware, not the software. It's a lot less work to write a novel with one plot than to write a novel with seven.</blockquote>