NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 9137751" data-attributes="member: 9053">This is one of the things that I genuinely don't understand. Other classes have mechanical class options for the social and exploration pillars. They are built into the class. The Fighter has none of those options now. It seems as if you don't care about balance in terms of what a character can do in a session, which I can see. A Fighter can take a skill to contribute to exploration (and even that is an optional rule, remember), but they will never be as good as other classes who do. From the last campaign I played in, they will never really be anything other than mediocre at those things. Why should that be the case?And that's when I genuinely don't get why creating a new class that could do things in those pillars would somehow be bad. If we don't care about balance, why is a new class that can do more than the Fighter a bad thing? Or is it that the Fighter has some unique quality that means they can control other martial classes and what they can do? Let's say we did a Ranger that removed spellcasting and would be just martial. Would they now have to lose exploration abilities? I'm genuinely not seeing how this makes sense and I'd like to.I'd really like to understand this, since it sounds lot like what WotC's designers are saying, and, if I'm being honest, that's poor design to me. So I'd really like to get it since I can understand the design choices of really just about every other game I've picked up over the decades. This isn't intended to be an attack post, rather a "I just don't get the perspective." And I'd like to.</blockquote>

Verification