Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FlyingChihuahua" data-source="post: 7363705" data-attributes="member: 6904924">That was meant to be a cheeky nod. The reason why we're doing this debate is because we both have our ideas that we won't let go and one of us is trying to convince the other of the One True Way to yell at people to make them do things. Take the idea of Commander's Strike and add it to a whole bunch of new Martial Maneuvers.There you go, a Warlord. With what they've done with Barbarian, I feel like making it just a background or a subclass would've been dumb. Warlock, Sorcerer and Wizard each have completely different stories as to how they got their magic, and I feel they have been differentiated enough in mechanics to make the distinction matter. Adding Wild Shape to the Cleric would've been silly. Paladin and Ranger are similar to the Warlock, Wizard, and Sorcerer. They have different enough stories from the Fighter/Cleric and Fighter with Outlander background to matter and they've done a good enough job using mechanics to separate them.Considering the design philosophy of 5E, (that being, from what I can tell is "Keep it simple, Stupid) I honestly fail to see how it's hypocrisy.</blockquote>