Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 7865113" data-attributes="member: 1210">To restate my point: The justification for the base classes in the PH was explicitly stated by the designers during the design process. I didn't make it up. I'm simply reiterating what we were told during the playtest and design period. My 'line of argument', as you put it, is the guys who made the game told us this is what they were doing as they were doing it. I didn't change the argument; I just kept clarifying what they said. And as for &quot;being in a PH1 isn't a guarantee&quot;, well, the designers would argue that they got it all in there. The assassin is in there. The warlord is in there (in a way I don't find satisfying, but it's there). And the artificer isn't in the PH, so its existence doesn't &quot;destroy&quot; any argument at all. In fact, I'm not even making an argument here- I am telling you what the designers told us during the design process. I'm not sure if you were involved in the 5e playtest, but if you search around, you can probably even find Mearls' statement about including everything from a previous PH (and again, I'm shortening/summarizing here). (...and I could be wrong, it could have been Crawford or someone else instead of Mearls, but I'm pretty sure it was Mearls.)Sure. But it won't be in the PH. And any class at all is on the table if the designers think it's appropriate to the product they are working on, setting or otherwise. My argument about designing a base class is best summarized as: There should be a very high bar to clear before something is considered worthy of a base class. Add to that all the specifics, e.g. I don't think witch or brawler clears that bar, but those are details.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 7865113, member: 1210"] To restate my point: The justification for the base classes in the PH was [i]explicitly stated by the designers during the design process.[/i] I didn't make it up. I'm simply reiterating what we were told during the playtest and design period. My 'line of argument', as you put it, is [b]the guys who made the game told us this is what they were doing as they were doing it.[/b] I didn't change the argument; I just kept clarifying what they said. And as for "being in a PH1 isn't a guarantee", well, the designers would argue that they got it all in there. The assassin is in there. The warlord is in there (in a way I don't find satisfying, but it's there). And the artificer isn't in the PH, so its existence doesn't "destroy" any argument at all. In fact, I'm not even making an argument here- I am telling you [i]what the designers told us during the design process.[/i] I'm not sure if you were involved in the 5e playtest, but if you search around, you can probably even find Mearls' statement about including everything from a previous PH (and again, I'm shortening/summarizing here). (...and I could be wrong, it could have been Crawford or someone else instead of Mearls, but I'm pretty sure it was Mearls.) Sure. But it won't be in the PH. And any class at all is on the table if the designers think it's appropriate to the product they are working on, setting or otherwise. [i]My[/i] argument about designing a base class is best summarized as: There should be a very high bar to clear before something is considered worthy of a base class. Add to that all the specifics, e.g. I don't think witch or brawler clears that bar, but those are details. [/QUOTE]

Verification