Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8088914" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Yes, that would be correct.I'd rather not see more subclasses either, because IMO if you want a certain sort of character, just PLAY them that way. It worked for many, many years in 1E and it still works now. We had people playing &quot;swashbucklers&quot; and &quot;diviners&quot; and &quot;sages&quot; and many others in 1E without needing classes or subclasses for them. Your weapon and armor selection, your spells, your proficiencies (once WSG and DSG came out), etc. all factored in, but also your character's personality, decisions, etc. were more important.Think of it this way: a lot of people play 5E with the free material WotC offers, which has only one subclass per class, and they have great games and happy players and DMs alike. The game is simpler and your choices, more so than your features, determine who your character is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8088914, member: 6987520"] Yes, that would be correct. I'd rather not see more subclasses either, because IMO if you want a certain sort of character, just [I]PLAY[/I] them that way. It worked for many, many years in 1E and it still works now. We had people playing "swashbucklers" and "diviners" and "sages" and many others in 1E without needing classes or subclasses for them. Your weapon and armor selection, your spells, your proficiencies (once WSG and DSG came out), etc. all factored in, but also your character's personality, decisions, etc. were more important. Think of it this way: a lot of people play 5E with the free material WotC offers, which has only one subclass per class, and they have great games and happy players and DMs alike. The game is simpler and your choices, more so than your features, determine who your character is. [/QUOTE]

Verification