Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8091319" data-attributes="member: 7023887">I agree. Whenever I discuss this with a group of players, a player that's been around for longer will come along and say something along the lines of &quot;that's not D&amp;D, don't bring that into the game&quot; or &quot;you're not allowed to add to D&amp;D, it wasn't here before,&quot; which always baffled me. There are archetypes to D&amp;D that have been there since the beginning, Fighting Person, Magic User, Thief, and other classes. If that didn't exist in D&amp;D for 40 years, it's not allowed in the game, from what I've been told. D&amp;D has to change. D&amp;D has to grow. It is good to keep the elements from previous editions, and it's also good to be cautious when adding a change/new aspect to the game. I understand that humans have a phobia of new things, and it gets stronger as you get older, but seriously, the game won't be destroyed by adding an arcane gish class, an occultist, a psion, or warlord. If D&amp;D becomes static, it will never change, and the hobby will die. People may not stop playing it, but WotC might stop making money, and editions might stop. That is not to say we should go overboard and add a bunch of unneeded classes. I don't want that. Class bloat is a problem, and can destroy an edition, as has happened before. But, we can add more without killing the hobby. IMHO, we should add more. The general D&amp;D community likes the Artificer, what would make another class not be widely accepted or popular? If it's well designed, thoroughly playtested and introduced to the community through the UA, added to improve the game, we should not be scared of adding more classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8091319, member: 7023887"] I agree. Whenever I discuss this with a group of players, a player that's been around for longer will come along and say something along the lines of "that's not D&D, don't bring that into the game" or "you're not allowed to add to D&D, it wasn't here before," which always baffled me. There are archetypes to D&D that have been there since the beginning, Fighting Person, Magic User, Thief, and other classes. If that didn't exist in D&D for 40 years, it's not allowed in the game, from what I've been told. D&D has to change. D&D has to grow. It is good to keep the elements from previous editions, and it's also good to be cautious when adding a change/new aspect to the game. I understand that humans have a phobia of new things, and it gets stronger as you get older, but seriously, the game won't be destroyed by adding an arcane gish class, an occultist, a psion, or warlord. If D&D becomes static, it will never change, and the hobby will die. People may not stop playing it, but WotC might stop making money, and editions might stop. That is not to say we should go overboard and add a bunch of unneeded classes. I don't want that. Class bloat is a problem, and can destroy an edition, as has happened before. But, we can add more without killing the hobby. IMHO, we should add more. The general D&D community likes the Artificer, what would make another class not be widely accepted or popular? If it's well designed, thoroughly playtested and introduced to the community through the UA, added to improve the game, we should not be scared of adding more classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification