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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 6193051" data-attributes="member: 54710">Using class groups seems like a very effective method of handling the magic item problem (or other prerequisite problems), although I think the "trickster" label is pretty lousy.But the examples at the bottom of the article are silly and seem like remnants of prescriptive "role" design from 4e.  Sure, maybe it makes sense for the Monk to have a d10 hit dice because the class is just a little too fragile.  But the class group shouldn't define aspects of the class design.  A class that combines aspects of the different groups is fine.  Why isn't the Monk a warrior and a trickster?  Surely, any feat, magic item or prestige-ability that is appropriate for warriors or tricksters would be appropriate for Monks.  Likewise, Bards should have access to magic items that are usable by mages or rogues.In the same way, I buy into this idea that a class has to act as a adequate substitute for one of the big four.  Yeah, Monks don't have the tanking capability of fighters.  So what?  They are pretty goods sneaks, have excellent defenses against magic and have funky magic powers to compensate.  So long as it all seems balanced in the end, the other monk abilities can compensate for the fact that a monk is a slightly second rate fighter.  (I'm not saying that every other edition succeeded in this balance, just that the balance is the goal, not fitting the class into a specific box.)So long as a Monk is an awesome monk, I don't think very many players are going to be disappointed if it's a second rate warrior.  D&DN isn't that fragile.  -KS</blockquote>

Verification