Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6173919" data-attributes="member: 37579">1st and 2nd Editon were both mercifully lite on classes. And 2e had entire hundred page books devoted to what were essentially subclasses. But it was fine because you were still playing the same class. 3e went class crazy to ridiculous levels and while 4e tried to be restrained the single role limitation also led to needless classes. And Pathfinder's being doing very well and keeping classes down (although this sounds like it's going to change and I don't much like that either).More classes are bad. Once you start saying "hey, the difference between these classes that are 95% identical save one learns magic and one is born with it" then you start doing the same for other classes. It sets a precedence I don't like. Because once you allow in sorcerers and warlocks then you start wondering about other ways spellcasters could get magic and allow the shi'ar and wild mage. Then you start looking at classes like the warlord or maybe the cavalier.The only way is to come down hard from the start and not allow classes to balloon out of control.</blockquote>