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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="squibbles" data-source="post: 8225438" data-attributes="member: 6937590">The current set of classes works fine for D&D, but it is very kludgey.I think D&D should be a bit more discriminating about the theming of its classes. Fighters and Wizards are general enough to express tons of archetypes--to the point that other whole classes could be folded into them. Other classes are super specific, to the point that I'm not regularly convinced their 5e subclasses make thematic sense, i.e. storm herald barbarians, circle of spores druids, swarmkeeper rangers, etc.I would like it better if the game was more explicit that some classes are broad and others are narrow--so, not any specific number of classes, just better thematic and mechanical organization of them. Some archetypes need to be their own complete thing, e.g. psion, but others--even others with relatively strong themes--are better off being bolted onto a generic chassis, e.g. gladiator. That way there are plenty of interesting fighty and magicy character options without too much class bloat or any obligation for the designers to write the umpteenth weird barbarian subclass that has no prior basis in myth or fiction.Yeah. In its particulars, D&D clearly doesn't support all fantasy.I'd like it if game publications were more upfront about that. Instead of having a setting that is strongly implied by class mechanics while pretending to be applicable to all fantasy genres, the PHB could state BLUNTLY what genres it supports best, and provide some suggestions for creating characters in genres it supports less well (i.e. dark fantasy, sword and sorcery, etc.). In the PHB and NOT the DMG; every player needs to see that guidance.</blockquote>

Verification