Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6671853" data-attributes="member: 37579">It is practical! It's as simple as not touching the elements of the game designed for the DM, the mechanics that can be adjusted to customize the tone of the game. It's as simple as finding an alternative mechanic that doesn't touch on rests or Hit Dice or the like, because the nature of those belongs more in the DM's wheelhouse than the player's.It's like making a class that creates permanent magic items or has a mechanic that modifies how experience is gained or alters the inspiration system. Those could all be cool, but they step on the DM's toes and should be avoided. If a class design does not let it fit as many different games as possible (such as a class designed for online publication for other people to use), then the class needs to be redesigned and a compromise found in its abilities or the class shouldn't be added.If individual DMs want to make a class that fits their homegame that's different, as they don't need to design content that accommodates other rules modules. It's fine if you want to make a class for you and your game that doesn't mesh with other rules modules but the ones used in your campaign. But you've been arguing with people designing warlord classes for almost a year and I don't recall seeing your warlord class. This doesn't mean the warlord should be identical to its 4e interpretation. A good designer would look at the warlord as a whole and evaluate what worked, what didn't work, and what could work. Then make changes. And also incorporating elements of the marshal or 2e kits would also be a good idea to make a more rounded class. Just copying the class isn't updating it to 5e or converting it, it's playing a 4th edition class in a 5th edition game. There's always room for improvement.</blockquote>

Verification