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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TrippyHippy" data-source="post: 5994636" data-attributes="member: 27252">I'd like to see the Psion class held back for specific settings or a psionic sourcebook. I am not totally averse to them being in the game on some level, but they really don't firt in in a lot of people's vision of fantasy, and it therefore undermines D&D's appeal as a generic fantasy game. Warlords are tricky for me, as I actually quite like the concept to play, but just feel it has been done in such a way that grates. Personally, I'd like to see Warlords as a Speciality of Fighter. That is, I don't see why Fighters can't specialise in tactics and leadership as an approach to fighting, rather than just a personal fighting style. Why can't Fighters be driven by intelligence and stategic thinking? Why can't Warlords be the products of Background and Speciality? Barbarians too, seem to be too Specialised to me, and a bit of a cultural stereotype. Some people just like the idea of a Class for megadamage, but can't it be done another way? Assassins are just a weak idea for an adventuring class, in my view. Why would an assassin decide to go for a dungeon crawl (unless they intend to kill another party member?)? None of the Assassin's abilities in 1st edition were particularly useful to an adventuring party (weaker in combat than a fighter; weaker than a Rogue as a scout). It was also off putting to have a Class that was limited by playing an Evil alignment only - more an NPC Class than a playable one. Morever, ever since the original 'Thief' concept got broadened out to be a 'Rogue', the actual need for a seperate Assassin Class was reduced significantly. In any case, can't any Class potentially make a good Assassin? Surely it's a Speciality therefore, rather than a separate Class?I'm not sure of the need for a seprate Summoner Class - I'd like to be able to play a Wizard who Specialises in Summoning, so like the Warlord, I feel a seperate Class would undermine this. I'd like to ensure than neither Paladins or Rangers get spell casting abilities - with their abilities kept seperate from the spell lists used for other Wizards, Clerics and the like. But I'm happy to see them there. I am happy to see the Spell-casting Classes as being: Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Witches (rather than Warlocks) and Bards. If you have 6 spell casters, then maybe 6 warrior types seems sensible to balance it: Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins..Monks, I s'pose....but then we are left with Assassins, Warlords or Barbarians (none of which I like!). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /></blockquote>

Verification