Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8087496" data-attributes="member: 7006">I am just unable to merge the two massively opposing thoughts of 5E that we are seeing here on the boards.The last 5 years it's all been about &quot;We need more game mechanics!&quot; &quot;More playing-facing material!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;More subclasses!&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;More this!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;More that!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;I'm bored of what we already have, we need more!!!&quot;&nbsp; And yet we have people here also claiming the game needs to condense the number of classes down to just like 4 of them because they are redundant?&nbsp; Really?So I'm assuming then that none of those people bought Xanathar's, nor will buy Tasha's... since it makes no logical sense to want more playing-facing game mechanics from new books while simultaneously wanting to remove 2/3rds of the existing class game mechanics by taking those classes away.&nbsp; You either have game mechanics in these books to create a &quot;monk&quot; (whether that be via subclasses, feats or actual classes) or you don't.&nbsp; But wanting a specific pattern on how to acquire those mechanics rather than having several different patterns to use to get there seems kind of pointless.Seeing as how we already have the Basic Rules, which is as stripped down a game as we can have... there is absolutely no reason why anyone should feel like the game is losing something by having 12 classes in the Player's Handbook.&nbsp; Because no one HAS to use the Player's Handbook.&nbsp; They can just use the Basic Rules and create their own Backgrounds to make their Entertainer Wizard bard clone... their Outlander Rogue ranger clone... their Noble Cleric paladin clone... their Hermit Fighter barbarian clone, etc.&nbsp; The game can support that playstyle and in fact already does.&nbsp; So there really shouldn't be any complaints.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8087496, member: 7006"] I am just unable to merge the two massively opposing thoughts of 5E that we are seeing here on the boards. The last 5 years it's all been about "We need more game mechanics!" "More playing-facing material!" "More subclasses!" "More this!" "More that!" "I'm bored of what we already have, we need more!!!" And yet we have people here also claiming the game needs to condense the number of classes down to just like 4 of them because they are redundant? Really? So I'm assuming then that none of those people bought Xanathar's, nor will buy Tasha's... since it makes no logical sense to want more playing-facing game mechanics from new books while simultaneously wanting to remove 2/3rds of the existing class game mechanics by taking those classes away. You either have game mechanics in these books to create a "monk" (whether that be via subclasses, feats or actual classes) or you don't. But wanting a specific pattern on how to acquire those mechanics rather than having several different patterns to use to get there seems kind of pointless. Seeing as how we already have the Basic Rules, which is as stripped down a game as we can have... there is absolutely no reason why anyone should feel like the game is losing something by having 12 classes in the Player's Handbook. Because no one HAS to use the Player's Handbook. They can just use the Basic Rules and create their own Backgrounds to make their Entertainer Wizard bard clone... their Outlander Rogue ranger clone... their Noble Cleric paladin clone... their Hermit Fighter barbarian clone, etc. The game can support that playstyle and in fact already does. So there really shouldn't be any complaints. [/QUOTE]

Verification