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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6561600" data-attributes="member: 15700">Ah, you mean the part that I said didn't make sense at all because...well..."one of these doesn't look like the others."  I.e., it didn't make sense in the context of everything else you had been saying.  It seemed to me like a random bit thrown against the wall that I couldn't make heads or tails of in how it related to everything else.  Unless you're talking Basic, the hobbit, or halfling, isn't a class.  What does that have to do with classes and subclasses?  And even it if was, what does that look like mechanically?  What in 5e prevents you from playing one?  Seems to me it's 99% fluff.  And I still don't have any idea what this means: Monsters as PCs have always been an outlier.No I didn't.  What I said was this:"I really don't think that rangers who can't cast spells, or rogues that don't have sneak attack are common. I think they are very much in the minority. And I don't think this is a subjective thing like you're claiming. I think it's very objective by looking at the history and default builds of both classes over the past several decades."Clearly I'm still talking within the context of D&D there.  And I never said that generalist wizards, leaders, or non assassins were never the norm.  For someone who accused me of not trying to have an honest discussion, it strikes me odd that you were resort to attacking strawman arguments.  I would never say that.  Generalist wizards, non assassin thieves, and leaders were the default classes for decades (well, leader isn't a class, but every party had a leader).  Why would I make that claim?  What I said, (non spell casting rangers and rogues without sneak attacks) is very much true.  And I'll repeat it again.  Just go look at the history of D&D and you'll see this is objectively true.Now that I understand what you want--archetypes that have all the work already done for you in the representation of feats and/or subclasses that emulate the commonly known* characters in literature--I still say it's not going to happen in D&D.  Why?  Because 2 reasons:1. D&D isn't built that way, and never has been (class based system and all)2. It would require a TON of bloat to cover every single "commonly known" archetype. Honestly, that's one of the great things I like about 5e.  It's more of a toolkit that is super easy to use, rather than wasting a ton of paper space just listing out a million different combinations.  I LOVE AD&D, and always will, but that's one thing I like so much better in 5e.  I don't need a subclass or class for every concept (like the fifty million ones in AD&D that showed up in all the dragon magazines).  The class, subclass, background, and feat tools allow me to emulate just about anything I want.  Heck, I don't even feel the need to multiclass to get there either.  For a class based system, I don't see how you can ask for anything more in that regard, realistically.  WoTC certainly won't put out a book of a bunch of subclasses to fit every literary archetype when not many people would end up buying or using it.* what is "common archetype" from literature anyway?  Conan, Aragorn?  Sure.  Flew Fleuder Flam, Walker Boh, Binabik , Rand al'Thor?  Who knows.</blockquote>

Verification