Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frozen_Heart" data-source="post: 8525847" data-attributes="member: 7029687">You say that like having hundreds of subclasses adds nothing for DM's and players to have to learn and look through. And when you say 'put up' with a class, do you have to 'put up' with the existence of other classes?And yes, I do enjoy certain mechanics of that those prior class iterations. But ultimately that's what classes are. A barbarian is a fighter with a rage mechanic. Why not get rid of rage and just make barbarian a fighter subclass with an 'angry person' theme. A paladin is based around its smite mechanic. But you could just get rid of smite and make it a fighter subclass with 1/3 casting cleric spells. A cleric is just a wizard with healing spells. Why not just make a 'restoration wizard' subclass, and axe cleric?The most simple thing for players and DM's to learn would be 'fighty person', 'skills person', 'magic person'. 3 classes are all that's needed. Why not do that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frozen_Heart, post: 8525847, member: 7029687"] You say that like having hundreds of subclasses adds nothing for DM's and players to have to learn and look through. And when you say 'put up' with a class, do you have to 'put up' with the existence of other classes? And yes, I do enjoy certain mechanics of that those prior class iterations. But ultimately that's what classes are. A barbarian is a fighter with a rage mechanic. Why not get rid of rage and just make barbarian a fighter subclass with an 'angry person' theme. A paladin is based around its smite mechanic. But you could just get rid of smite and make it a fighter subclass with 1/3 casting cleric spells. A cleric is just a wizard with healing spells. Why not just make a 'restoration wizard' subclass, and axe cleric? The most simple thing for players and DM's to learn would be 'fighty person', 'skills person', 'magic person'. 3 classes are all that's needed. Why not do that? [/QUOTE]

Verification