Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7400993" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, sure, if you try to walk all the PH1 classes past any sensible-sounding bar to new classes that would actually exclude the classes people keep asking for (check out the poll, they include, in descending order:&nbsp; Artificer, Warlord, <s>Psion(icist)</s>'Mystic,' &amp; Shaman.)&nbsp;Of the 5e implementations of classic classes, I have to admit, I like the Druid best.&nbsp; So you just had to go there.&nbsp; ;(&nbsp; Considering the other bars proposed to new classes, the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard would all run aground on any number of them.&nbsp; We'd be down to Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, prettymuch.&nbsp; Or 'Adventurer.'&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;You seem to have two very different positions, above.1) The game doesn't need new classes because you should be able to just build any new character concept by mixing &amp; matching the existing ones, along with backgrounds, feats, and 'role playing.' (There's no psionic class?&nbsp; Just RP being able to read minds!&nbsp; &quot;I can totally read your mind!&quot; &quot;OK, what am I thinking?&quot;&nbsp; &quot;You're thinking 'no way he can read my mind, there's no psionicist class'&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Wow, you CAN read minds!&quot;)2) The game shouldn't allow MC'ing because it's total powergaming catnip, and every valid concept should just have a sub-class cover it - plus a background and throw in the 'just role-play-it' panacea for anything that's missing.&nbsp; &nbsp; Which doesn't add up.&nbsp; I don't suppose you're just taking the apologist tack of '5e is perfect, any fewer classes (no Barabarian? unthinkable!) would be too few, any more classes ('psionicist?' bah! humbug!) would be too many,' so I guess I'm just missing an actual point in there somewhere....&nbsp; As I see it:&nbsp; Yes, you can design a game with few classes - or no classes - and have players 'build' just the character they want, more or less from scratch.&nbsp; Alternately, you can design a game with many (sub)Classes, each of which neatly fills out a given archetype or character concept, while leaving others unavailable.&nbsp; If you do the latter, people who can't just pick a (sub)Class that neatly fills out the character concept they have in mind are going to demand new classes.Since D&amp;D has always gone with more classes, people who don't get what they want out of the existing classes want even moar classes.&nbsp; :shrug:&nbsp;Then why'd they design 5e that way?&nbsp; 5e doesn't just use unique mechanics to define/differentiate some classes, it has some /sub/-classes that have unique mechanics assigned to them.&nbsp; &quot;Don't add game mechanics for game mechanics' sake&quot; ends you up with an effects-based system like Hero - and no classes, at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7400993, member: 996"] Well, sure, if you try to walk all the PH1 classes past any sensible-sounding bar to new classes that would actually exclude the classes people keep asking for (check out the poll, they include, in descending order: Artificer, Warlord, [s]Psion(icist)[/s]'Mystic,' & Shaman.) Of the 5e implementations of classic classes, I have to admit, I like the Druid best. So you just had to go there. ;( Considering the other bars proposed to new classes, the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard would all run aground on any number of them. We'd be down to Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, prettymuch. Or 'Adventurer.' ;) You seem to have two very different positions, above. 1) The game doesn't need new classes because you should be able to just build any new character concept by mixing & matching the existing ones, along with backgrounds, feats, and 'role playing.' (There's no psionic class? Just RP being able to read minds! "I can totally read your mind!" "OK, what am I thinking?" "You're thinking 'no way he can read my mind, there's no psionicist class'" "Wow, you CAN read minds!") 2) The game shouldn't allow MC'ing because it's total powergaming catnip, and every valid concept should just have a sub-class cover it - plus a background and throw in the 'just role-play-it' panacea for anything that's missing. Which doesn't add up. I don't suppose you're just taking the apologist tack of '5e is perfect, any fewer classes (no Barabarian? unthinkable!) would be too few, any more classes ('psionicist?' bah! humbug!) would be too many,' so I guess I'm just missing an actual point in there somewhere.... As I see it: Yes, you can design a game with few classes - or no classes - and have players 'build' just the character they want, more or less from scratch. Alternately, you can design a game with many (sub)Classes, each of which neatly fills out a given archetype or character concept, while leaving others unavailable. If you do the latter, people who can't just pick a (sub)Class that neatly fills out the character concept they have in mind are going to demand new classes. Since D&D has always gone with more classes, people who don't get what they want out of the existing classes want even moar classes. :shrug: Then why'd they design 5e that way? 5e doesn't just use unique mechanics to define/differentiate some classes, it has some /sub/-classes that have unique mechanics assigned to them. "Don't add game mechanics for game mechanics' sake" ends you up with an effects-based system like Hero - and no classes, at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification