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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6843209" data-attributes="member: 996">It's not complicated, but it is critically important.  A player is free to choose any class.  There's no requirements gating superior or advanced classes.  In the process of character generation, all classes are equivalent, in that you get to choose any one in place of any other.  You don't need fluff on humans as much as fluff on elves as much as fluff on dragonborn.  But the mechanics do need model each of those races, and they do.   No one's asking you to do that.  Whether you can lift a car is a function of STR.  Batman & Superman would both have defined STR scores, and they'd be very different.  But, Batman can also do an awful lot of things that ordinary, RL people just can't, and he can do things reliable, in the heat of battle, that even really exceptional RL life people struggle to do twice in a row even under ideal conditions - and things that are just flat out impossible, really, including a lot of his technology.  They're both comic book characters, and we hold them to the same standard of superheroes in a comic book.  Probably not worth it to split that particular hair, but Batman crosses that line routinely, IMHO.  Do you live in the Forgotten Realms?  No.  You have no idea what 'reality' is like there.  Fighters /can't/ be limited to RL reality, because they are in an heroic fantasy game.  They can be held to genre conventions, sure, but, to be fair, it'd have to be to the same degree the game holds casters to genre conventions - and that's not a very restrictive degree.And 5e's goals was to cover a broader range of such styles and tones, closer to the sum of what prior editions had done.  It's not there yet, but it's covered 2e & 3.x fairly well, and isn't far off from the rest of the classic game.  The addition of the Warlord would further build on that success.Defining what a character can do, and defining each thing they could do are very different things.  5e already has an open-ended DM-Empowering system for covering what anyone might do (ability checks), and what some might do a bit better (proficiencies).  That's covered.  It's the exceptional things, the class abilities that need to be defined in more detail, and they can be reasonably finite.  (The precedent in 5e is up to around a hundred or so things per class.)D&D is and always has been quite rules-heavy.  5e may be light on supplements, but it's rules are still substantial.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Nod, as far as they go.  Maneuvers are, based on the design of the BM, limited to things it'd be reasonable for a 3rd level character to do.  Even as the minor sideline that maneuvers for a BM or spells for an EK go, that's a little meh (EK's at least work their way up to spells a 7th level character could cast).  'Maneuver' is sure a better label than 'power' or 'exploit,' though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification