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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 9071617" data-attributes="member: 6803643">Yes, but if you start with the mechanics before you know the concepts you want the class to represent, then you end up pigeon-holing your class into concept that only fit within the mechanics. 5e D&D classes are BROAD TENT. Paladins aren't just knights in shining armor, they're also wardens of eldritch forests, they're blackguards and tyrannical iron mongers, they're glorious heroes of Homer's Illiad and Odyssey. The class needs a central identity (in the Paladin's case, it's the idea of an inner code of conduct driving their martial arts and their magical prowess), but needs to be broad enough that it can encompass various iterations, world views, and cultural sources.Look too at the Artificer. This is a class whose central theme is "magitechnology." Everything they do surrounds their abilities as magical technicians and engineers, but this is expressed in wildly different ways. Battle Smiths and Armorers are Arcane Gishes, serving very akin to that of the Swordmage from 4e, while Alchemists are exactly as written on the tin and Artillerists are gunslingers with a mobile ballista/dwarven windlass (from which you can fire black arrows at Smaug; thanks Bard). There are so many unexplored niches within this idea that is far more expansive than "Rogue+Wizard focused on use magic item." There's a big thread about this over on the other 5e subforum.We can't re-design the Monk without understanding the core central theme of the class. If we just do the mechanics we like, then the theme will mold itself around the mechanics, and limit itself from various expressions. We need to create mechanics that mold around a central but expansive theme.</blockquote>

Verification