Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 8353345" data-attributes="member: 63508">I avoided it because it is hard to explain.Basically how some fans describe there preferences for D&amp;D don't match up with how the game would have to be built for those desires.Like people wanting a nonmagical ranger but not realizing that the class would have to be loaded up to the ear in features to replace them.That ultimately caster classes must have relatively minor subclass features because of the overall power and lack of restraint in spells from the second tier on. That warrior classes should really have more attacks to really display they prowess but don't in order to speed up play.It would display that the HP bloat is due to fans both wanting higher base survival in adventurers AND a simple HP growth system.Annotations would expose these conflicts in the minds of many fans and expose compromises and errors in WOTC's designs. It would bust some of the illusions 5e runs on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 8353345, member: 63508"] I avoided it because it is hard to explain. Basically how some fans describe there preferences for D&D don't match up with how the game would have to be built for those desires. Like people wanting a nonmagical ranger but not realizing that the class would have to be loaded up to the ear in features to replace them. That ultimately caster classes must have relatively minor subclass features because of the overall power and lack of restraint in spells from the second tier on. That warrior classes should really have more attacks to really display they prowess but don't in order to speed up play. It would display that the HP bloat is due to fans both wanting higher base survival in adventurers AND a simple HP growth system. Annotations would expose these conflicts in the minds of many fans and expose compromises and errors in WOTC's designs. It would bust some of the illusions 5e runs on. [/QUOTE]

Verification