Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6937477" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Classless D&amp;D?!?? Insanity!!!In all honesty, I don't mind the class system in the game, when it comes down to it. It serves a purpose and helps focus players a bit by giving them a kind of archetype to lean into on. Not that you can't also play against type...that can be great too. But the classes help give the game some structure.My reason for preferring a limit to the number of classes...and indeed other options, too....is that the more that they add to the game, the greater the chances for things to become unbalanced. And while I am capable of course correcting on my own, I just prefer not to have to do so. I suppose that other than the four or so core archetypical classes, those that seem the most justified are the ones that combine some kind of fictional inspiration with an interesting game mechanic. So in that sense, the Barbarian seems more justified than the Ranger, in my opinion. I personally am much more open to fluff/lore material than crunch, so I'm not against this idea per se, even if I'm not sure how large an audience there is for it. But I have to ask...don't such sourcebooks already exist? From a prior edition, sure...but that shouldn't matter for fluff or lore, right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 6937477, member: 6785785"] Classless D&D?!?? Insanity!!! In all honesty, I don't mind the class system in the game, when it comes down to it. It serves a purpose and helps focus players a bit by giving them a kind of archetype to lean into on. Not that you can't also play against type...that can be great too. But the classes help give the game some structure. My reason for preferring a limit to the number of classes...and indeed other options, too....is that the more that they add to the game, the greater the chances for things to become unbalanced. And while I am capable of course correcting on my own, I just prefer not to have to do so. I suppose that other than the four or so core archetypical classes, those that seem the most justified are the ones that combine some kind of fictional inspiration with an interesting game mechanic. So in that sense, the Barbarian seems more justified than the Ranger, in my opinion. I personally am much more open to fluff/lore material than crunch, so I'm not against this idea per se, even if I'm not sure how large an audience there is for it. But I have to ask...don't such sourcebooks already exist? From a prior edition, sure...but that shouldn't matter for fluff or lore, right? [/QUOTE]

Verification