Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tigris" data-source="post: 9875581" data-attributes="member: 7043270">Why should this be necessary? As long as the player knows what it does its enough. Its really just authoritorian fantasy of many GMs that they need to know what player classes do (in order to forbid it etc.)The GM will learn what the class does when playing and might get surprised which can also be a form of joy. Still I agree that in the way 5e works it would just be a subclass. 5e is about not taking risks ans about doing the bare minimum to add new things. Also the design space in 5e is so limited especially with having 90% of conplexity just in spells, that its hardly possible to make another martial class with a clear identity.Ranger already struggles even though its a half caster. And even though I like the idea of an assassin class (like in 4e) with different subclasses I cant see it happening.If 5.5 would have at least succeeded ro make subclasses universal (same level same power budget) I ninja could have been a nice subclass for ranger, rogue and monk and maybe fighter, but alas thats not the case and ranger subclasses need to be a lot stronger especially at level 11. I can see the argument for background, but background just has not enough power in 5e. Just a origin feat is not powerfull enough to make a ninja distinct. I would think it would be a rogue subclass overall. Rogue is the sneeky character with hit and run built in base. Thrown weapons (shuriken) also work with the class feature.</blockquote>

Verification