Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5826215" data-attributes="member: 32536">I think it would be a lot more elegant and effective to simply not make a class that tries to cover so much ground... Anyways, the basic concept of the 3E Fighter was not sound, simply because its focus on small optional benefits left it utterly unable to compete with the very significant class features of better classes.Anyways, this Rule of Three is one of the more encouraging signs I've seen out of WotC over the last few weeks. It's nice to see them openly talk about how a problem is difficult, without trying to convince us that there is some obvious and easy solution to be found in older rules. Seeing that thought process was interesting.The monster talk was also interesting. As long as we don't get the unnecessarily convoluted rules from 3E and still see some of the humanoid monster variety seen in 4E, I really won't begrudge those who want to give monsters class levels and templates. Also, I don't think a vampiric half-celestial animated chair is rules-legal, but it is very funny. <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=":)" /></blockquote>