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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6937171" data-attributes="member: 996">Only one, and no similar problem with thirtysomethings?  Lucky you!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Nod.  Par for the course, there are always critics & apologists who go too far.  At least this time around the critics aren't rabid enough to start an Edition War.But, 5e is in the mold of classic D&D, and the classic, class(npi)-based approach to modeling characters is based on, well, having a list of classes, and expanding the number of classes you can model by expanding that list. That's just the bottom line.  If you turn on 3e style MCing, you can get /some/ of the ability of that edition to mix-and-match to model different concepts, and 5e does, like 4e, have Backgrounds that can be appended to any class to do likewise.  It's also possible to re-skin 5e content - more so than in 3e, less so than with 4e, but it's possible.So even as a player, you have some flexibility to reach beyond class stereotypes.  But, adding classes is still necessary to bring everyone on board.  Not every class ever, but at very least every class (or character concept later implemented as a class) ever in a PH1, preferably every one ever in a PH, and a selection of the most unique/compelling examples from non-PH classes.That's as close as they could come to fulfilling the 'big tent'/inclusiveness mandate, while also working within the 'evoke the classic game' mandate.  But, hey, they knew the job was tough (impossible) when they took it!Agreed.  I never cared for psionics, personally (too sci-fi, a common complaint), nor the ("orientalism" of the) Monk for that matter, so I wasn't open to the PH3 versions of psionics - and I was suspicious of the PP mechanic.  Then I held my nose long enough to actually play in a game with a few of 'em, and, they were fine, actually.  In fact, I finally played a hybrid Ardent, and, yes, I have to admit they're a fine class concept.   Given how mushy 5e is with source and role, they might just as easily be a Warlord or Mystic (or even Artificer, if a Shaman can be one, why not?) sub-class as be a class in their own right, I suppose.</blockquote>

Verification