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="Psion" data-source="post: 2095862" data-attributes="member: 172">Quite likely.I feel like I am repeating myself, but let me sum up in hopes that it put fine enough point on it:I beleive1) that of the new core classes that are out there, some are very general and cover a fair breadth of character concepts, and some are more specific. And,2) that there is a non-negligible time that goes into managing these additions to your campaign.So, it is my conclusion that by allowing a small cadre of more general classes in instead of a larger amount of more specific classes that cover similar territory, I have made a better investment of my time.Now you allude to the possibility of not actually doing the work to integrate new classes until a player actually uses it. I have a philosophy of using the same options for PCs and NPCs, and feature NPCs as my primary opposition, so there is a good chance that I will have already had to make use of a given option many times before it ever comes to the player's attention.I really don't agree. To pluck an example from fiction, Vlad Taltos of the Dragaera novels started out as a pretty common street thug... as did most of the lackeys that worked with him or for him. It was only after much development that he was ready to be a true assassin-for-hire instead of an enforcer. And I don't think that example at all unusual in the evolution of an assassin... or any of a variety of specialists, really.See above.Yes, if a player actually DID bring a class option to me, I would have to consider it (and in all likelihood, if the class is too specific, point him to the more general equivalent that acheives the same end.) I tend to put the options on the table beforehand because I will be using them myself.It's just one example.I'm hoping I addressed this above.I include the courtier not so much because of setting considerations (though I'll note that it's in Swashbucking Adventures, too.) Rather, because my play model is sufficiently broad that some characters proficient in intrigue are a credible option, and the rogue and bard are something of an inexact fit for a character who might wish to address that option face on.Since I choose broad classes that I feel can fit a variety of character concepts, I feel that I have fewer pre-existing holes. Trying to address the possibilities of concepts a player may be interested in with narrow classes feels a bit like "conceptual whack-a-mole" to me. <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification