Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 5938459" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I think a lot of the reasoning depends on how we see the direction of D&D Next. We almost have to declare our D&D Next "political affiliation" for our thoughts to make sense.For me, I strongly support the stated direction of D&D Next, which includes trying to keep all the iconics and make the game work for fans of all versions from OD&D up to 4E. It also includes trying to make it feel more like D&D for more people, as much as can be achieved. I'm such a strong supporter of the design philosophy, that I find myself sometimes voicing my opinion in support of certain inclusions I'd personally rather have relegated to a dark corner of a fringe book, because some people like them, and they have precedent in one version or another.From this perspective, discussing why we need classes like ranger or paladin has a simple answer: tradition. I like having them as base classes. I also like assassin as a base class, even though it's before my time and I've never had direct experience with it. I wouldn't even mind bringing in the Cavalier and Thief-Acrobat, although I think that's an example of classes that were always fringe enough (ie, not core PHB) that themes might fit better.If, on the other, hand, a person disagrees with the stated (as well as implied) direction of D&D Next, then their preferences come with an entirely different set of logic. Does it add something significantly unique to the game experience? Does it add extra bloat? Could it still be D&D without it?I couch almost all of my arguments in light of assumed support of the design philosophy, which means that they are totally invalid arguments if the design philosophy itself is being debated, and the same from the other direction.As a proponent of mutual understanding and reasonable discourse, I kind of wish we all wore a badge saying where we fell from "Strongly Agree with the Design Philosophy" to "Strongly Disagree with the Design Philosophy."Of course, that's a pipe dream that isn't going to happen, but man, wouldn't it cut down on a lot of needless debate and make it more profitable. <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=":)" />EDIT: How do I get rid of those hyper-text links in my post?  I feel like I'm doing some sort of completely unnecessary advertising, lol.</blockquote>

Verification