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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6705664" data-attributes="member: 6790260">And, of course, by ensuring that only the things that already have legacy are allowed to gain any more legacy, you can ensure that the things you don't want never get into the game. It's the "fresh member of the workforce" catch-22: you can't get a job until you have experience, and you can't get experience until you have a job.Which is why this "logic" is a line of BS. Are you seriously saying that D&D is such a closed system, so completely immune to growing or changing, that it now cannot bring in new ideas that can germinate, change, evolve, and eventually develop their own legacy? If so, why does 5e have the Warlock (legacy only goes back to mid/late 3.5e--just like the Marshal) or the Dragonborn (debatable whether the legacy goes back to late 3e or core 4e)? Why does it have the Sorcerer, which definitely never existed before late 2e? Why isn't there a separate thief-acrobat from the baseline thief, with 1e through 3e giving those treatment equivalent to things that are subclasses in 5e (like the Eldritch Knight)? Where's the 1e Bard that later became the Fochlucan Lyrist, with its Fighter, Thief, and Druid features, which again has 1e and 3e (can't find evidence in 2e) to support it?I don't at all question the idea that an (not the, only an) important reason we still have both Paladins and Clerics, or Bards despite the Rogue and Wizard, or Rangers despite the Druid and Rogue, is that these things have developed a legacy. But to say that new things cannot be admitted specifically because they don't have legacy strikes me as not only impossible for anything to meet, and inconsistent, considering that every edition (except, possibly, 5e--and that's with a big "yet" attached) has added its own new classes and concepts.Heck, even the "legacy" standard doesn't, on its own, justify the existence of the Paladin. Wasn't the 1e Paladin just a Fighter variant that got some extra early features, an alignment restriction, and priest spells instead of followers at high levels? The Paladin "legacy" hasn't even been consistent about whether it's a standalone class or a modification of some other class.</blockquote>

Verification