Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8306634" data-attributes="member: 87792">One interesting example here is the barbarian class. Introduced in 3.0 I find the 3.0 and 3.5 barbarian entirely surplus to requirements - there is nothing in the conceptual design of the 3.X barbarian that a 3.X fighter shouldn't be able to do. So shoehorning in the barbarian probably stole design space from the fighter and made the fighter worse.By contrast 4e said "we've got this thing called the barbarian. What can we do with it?" And then dropped it in the primal power source, effectively incubating it into a real class that both didn't overlap with the now more focused fighter and allowing designers to explore the space. Which is how we get things like Storm Herald and Totem Warrior barbarians in 5e.So just hacking off a bit of design space from the fighter IMO meant that the 3.X barbarian made the fighter worse. But actively incubating the barbarian in 4e meant that it's now a worthy class on its own in both 4e and 5e.And sometimes it's not this bit of the aesthetics that matter but the desire to explore them.</blockquote>