Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2092532" data-attributes="member: 2205">Character evolution isn't the be all end all of playing, especially if you're used to games that last (at most) a number of months rather than a number of years.  In that case, rather than "evolve" into your character concept you want to play them right away.I'm not sure where character evolution became a desireable feature.  It's just a feature; for some it's great, for others it's not.That's true, and that's also why I said I knew I was exaggerating.  Clearly, a concept is more than the mechanics, and there are core class options that approximate.  Let's take another example, since you didn't like my assassin one.  A faceman/diplomat/negotiator type.  You could do that with Rogue; certainly it's got the right skill set to choose from and the right number of skill points to really max out Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, Bluff and all the other skills associated with that lifestyle.  But you've also got all these strange evasion abilities, not to mention Sneak Attack, which, while an excellent class ability, probably have nothing to do with the character concept.  "So play a bard," you might say.  What?  Instead of a pseudo-assassin, you're recommendation is that I play a musician with an inate knowledge of history and mythology who can cast spells?  How is that any closer to my concept?The point is, the core classes represent only a very narrow selection of possible archetypes, and even then, a narrower interpretation of each of the archetypes.  Since the whole point of playing a class-based system is to utilize archetypes, the fact that there are only a dozen or so base classes seems more like a bug than a feature.  It directly hinders one of the whole points of one of the main design conceits of the game.Luckily, with the newer books, there are a lot of new core classes available.  Of course, within 3rd party books, we've had that all along, too.If the puctuated delivery of cool abilities delivers the wrong abilities, then that's what my problem is.  You're mixing up my complaint about classes with a complaint that I didn't make about levels.Methinks you're projecting your opinion out onto the masses.  <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=":)" />  I've never thought there was such a thing as "too many classes", nor would I ever call such a thing a "bane" but rather a blessing.So what's your solution?  Scrap the ranger?  Revise him to a more generic woodsman?  You say that this is why you don't like the idea of too many narrowly defined core classes that are similar, but what is the reason?  You never state it.  The fact that the ranger wasn't designed to deliver what gamers were obviously expecting from the archetype?  I don't see how that could bring you to the conclusion that we need less core classes.  More stabs at the woodsman archetype via core classes would, on the other hand, solve the problem right nicely, as everybody who wanted to play one would have an easier time finding a class that fit his vision of the woodsman archetype.</blockquote>

Verification