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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5939376" data-attributes="member: 2067">You say this as if it's a tautology, but I'm unconvinced. There isn't some magical number of classes that is the logically perfect number of classes. If a particular DM feels like they must draw a line, then more power to them, and they should. But WotC doesn't need to universally draw that line for everyone.All rules are ultimately arbitrary. There's not a "need" for ANY class. There's not a need for any rules. There's not a need for any words or books. This isn't about a need, because if the game was designed with only what was "necessary for play" in mind, we could scrap every rule ever and still have lots of fun pretending to be adventurers in dungeons fighting dragons.So it's not about a need. It's about a want.Some people want it as a unique class. Good enough for me. Some people don't want it as a unique class. And they don't have to have it if they don't want it. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't have it, though.There's a few layers to this.The first is that just because there's no Avenger class in the PHB doesn't mean there won't someday be an Avenger class.The second is that the reasons for including every class that's been in a PHB in 5e's PHB are about letting people play a game with a "D&D Feel" (whatever that means to them) from Day 1. The Avenger, awesome as it may be, probably isn't integral to that feel. The paladin, for some folks, certainly is. So you should get your Avenger class. And what applies to the Paladin also applies here: just because it's a theme doesn't mean it can't ALSO be a class. Just because Paladin's a class doesn't mean it can't ALSO be part of other subsystems. Perfect! I think we've got little to disagree about, then. <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=":)" />Personally, a paladin class doesn't seem like mostly what I want, anyway. It'd like to see it as some sort of prestige class/paragon path. You start out as a fighter or a cleric/fighter or a cleric (or whatever) and as you gain levels you become a noble crusader for your god. So it wouldn't hit me personally that hard. <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=";)" />But as you say, it has roots in the game's history, and that's why it's being included as a class in the first PHB. Which, to me, is fine. And I think you should get your Avenger class. And I also think that people should be able to build "avengers" with assassins, rogues, or clerics (or some multiclass combo) with the priest background and the "Oath-taker" theme (which is where the roll-twice mechanic might live). IMO, there isn't One True Way. I don't disagree. I just think that "the line" is for every DM to determine. Some DMs may want and welcome all these and more as classes. Others will pick and choose. Some players will like the Warlock class, some players will like the "Devil-Bound" theme, some players will like the "Corrputed" background. Some will take all of those. Some will also have a Witch class, or a Sha'ir class, or an Alienist class, or a Diabolist class.I personally think this is one of the benefits of the OGL, specifically. WotC might not see much value in publishing a book full of options for role-playing in Africa, but Nyambe's got my back. Even if WotC never sees the logic in publishing an Avenger class, some third party should be able to, even if it IS redundant with some combination of themes and backgrounds and classes or multiclasses.</blockquote>

Verification