Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8745279" data-attributes="member: 4937">WotC says a lot of dumb things. I've been arguing with MaRo for like 20 years now.Pirates can literally be any class, which is why you want to be able to build them out of configurable pieces.If people want, then sure.  I mean Leadership is literally a skill in my homebrew, and one of the few class abilities that Fighters have that isn't a bonus feat is a bonus to the Tactics skill when working with others.  So I feel we are on the same page on everything except your insistence in maintaining your one idea of what a class can be.You don't need all these classes to do the things you are asking for in battlefield control, defending allies, providing leadership and so forth.  You are literally describing one class, and the only difference between characters is where you weight and focus your particular build.  We don't need Warlords, Defenders, and 45 other martial classes splitting up what a fighter can do into this little narrow niches.  That's literally the opposite of what this thread is about.In practice you rarely see that narrowed themed crap from a spellcasting class.  I mentioned someone wants to play "Elsa" but in my experience the biggest problem with those concepts is that the classes are so broad and the goodies so tempting that invariably the player eventually dips outside of the original concept to pick up new cool powers in the form of spells that don't quite fit the concept.  Imagine that being a fighter was that wonderful, that you started out with, "I'm going to be an archer", and then after a while you were like, "Oh, and I'm going to be a Swashbuckler", and then after a while you were like, "But I'm also a Warlord", and you are at that point only like 9th level.And as much as I respect what the 5e designers were trying to do with the edition, they made tons of mistakes and did tons of really short sighted things.Spellcaster have almost no problems feeling unique because they have 100's of spells to choose from to define their particular thing.  Every spellcaster is going to end up slightly different, and the more open your spell lists are the more that is going to be true.  The only reason to silo spells is to avoid classes that can do literally everything, as for example keeping healing magic out of the wizard list and big splashy things largely out of the cleric list.   But sorcerers and wizards have no problem feeling different, and can largely have the same spell list and still feel really different.  There are only a handful of spells on my list that can't be cast by multiple classes, because the test is "Is there a good reason NOT to have this spell available to all classes?"5e barely supports any character concepts.  On some levels it is a wonderfully elegant system and on other levels it's just absolutely terrible.  If you want to build a 5e character and you don't know the system at all, you don't start with a concept because if you do you are just going to be frustrated.  Instead, you go look at the list of things you are allowed do and you pick one.Yeah, but it's not that subjective.  You've already set some reasonable standard - fewer pages is all other things being equal better than more pages.</blockquote>

Verification