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="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9876268" data-attributes="member: 7035894">I agree. It's a balancing act with a class-based system. If you have very specific mechanical requirements for your character concept, it is almost impossible to get them exactly right within the class restrictions.The main alternative is a skill-based system where each character is a bespoke creation. The problem with those systems is twofold: 1) they are extremely difficult for beginners to manage, and 2) you always wind up with more homogeneity, as experienced players converge on a few "optimal" builds.Having played both, I really prefer a class-based system, despite the trade-offs you have to make, as overall you get much more variety.To make something like "ninja" work for D&D (setting aside that they will never use that as a class name again), you have to just focus on the archetypal features that almost everyone can agree upon. What typically happens is that people get into the weeds of arguing why this or that personal preference is essential to the class. That's why, at that broad level, I don't think a new class would get any closer than what we already have in shadow monk.The idea of a background has some merit if tied to a specific setting, I think, but waters down the concept quite a bit. A light cleric with the "ninja" background could be cool, but doesn't exactly speak to the archetype.Edit: I think a significant amount of the "ninja" concept also comes down to your roleplaying choices, not class mechanics. To me, a monk is the obvious fit, but RPing a gloomstalker ranger, assassination or arcane trickster rogue, etc., could also easily work.</blockquote>

Verification