Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9875765" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I am not persuaded by any argument which simply says "well what if we tried to do that with less?" If your goal is to create a minimalist game, cool, but D&D hasn't been that...ever. Not even Basic was that minimalist.I, personally, think that the Assassin is as different from the Rogue and the Fighter as Ranger, Bard, Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk are different from those two classes.Or, if you prefer: Would Fighter plus "flunked magic school" background be enough for Eldritch Knight? Would Rogue plus "went to bard college" background be enough for Bard? Would Fighter plus Acolyte be enough for Paladin?I know there are people who would say, even insist, that the answer to all those questions is yes. I am not one of those people. I see significant utility in allowing an idea the space and focus of a full class, rather than trying to give it a paper-thin, superficial appearance of being fulfilled by things that are entirely inadequate to convey the class fantasy.Some ideas are big enough that even a subclass doesn't do them justice.</blockquote>