TwoSix
Bad DM
User name checks out.All of the classes.
Diversity is goooood.
Seriously. Your 65. Forced into retirement. Wtf are you going do? Sit in the rocking chair?
I say virtual reality systems plus EVERYTHING DnD![]()

User name checks out.All of the classes.
Diversity is goooood.
Seriously. Your 65. Forced into retirement. Wtf are you going do? Sit in the rocking chair?
I say virtual reality systems plus EVERYTHING DnD![]()
If it advocates for anything in that argument I’d’ve thought my post advocates against multiclassing, as there’s now inherent access to other class’ features built in, so there’s no need to take those levels to get that stuff.Based on the post I was responding to, I would assume so, but its just 2 (of the many) branches we can take in terms of design.
Look at the Elf in Shadowdark, vs the Astral Elf in 5e. Both reflect the "Elf" trope/archetype.
The same thing with Class options. Personally, I've come to a point where I hate multiclassing, I think its bad for the game, and I dont particularly like mix and match mechanics.
Restrictions, inflexibility, if i want Sneak Attack I have no other choice but to play a rogue and take everything else that is packaged alongside those levels, would it not be more simple and elegant to be able to take Hunter Ranger or Shadow Monk and it be part of their natural abilities?Simplicity, elegance, and if you want that Sneak Attack? Play a Rogue/Thief.
i agree, but i think we diverge on what we are considering a bigger source of complexity.Both are valid, I'm just increasingly not interested in the complex approach.
i agree, but i think we diverge on what we are considering a bigger source of complexity.
I sincerely doubt that every gaming company, let alone every company everywhere, is pushing hard for market dominance just like WotC. And there is zero reason to believe that the corps over in Renton prioritize making the best game they can publish at all. They are IMO simply too big and too publicly-owned to care about anything but getting richer. A lot of companies are like that, but not all companies, and not all gaming companies.Better game to, for, by whom? Pushing for market dominance is what every for profit company does as any dollar going to someone not you, is a dollar you dont make.
I'm sure that for the definition held by Wizards, the next 5.5 Edition is the best game they could make, and better than 5e.
By MY definition, I'll happily send my money to Shadowdark, because thats a better game to me.
Level Up has those things.One of the things I like about most other modern roleplaying games is that, at best, you're building a starting package, and then essentially from there all options are available as your character advances from there. D&D and its clones is pretty much the only RPG that I can think of that still silos/pigeonholes you into a box with limited abilities to branch out. Then makes you multiclass with a poorly thought out system to fill in any concept gaps.
But, for D&D that is something I don't want to change. Well, except multiclassing. Multiclassing needs to go away as it exists now.
Just give me a full psion class and a fighter/mage hybrid class that I don't have to multiclass to do (eldritch knight does NOT hack it) and I'll shut up.
Level Up takes a slightly different tack when it comes to multiclassing and feats.I'd honestly prefer feat based multiclassing. Taking feats to pick up the signature features of other classes (like pathfinder 2e).
ah, i think i'm seeing the disconnect, i'm less advocating for full 'build-a-bear' and more for various mechanics just being shared between classes more, at least where it makes sense to share them, some access might be more on individual subclass basis or feature choice, but still built into the class design, no more intricate than a warlock picking both pact and patron.I guess, but I'm not sure how I can square a 'build a bear' package of feats an abilities as less complex, than just having bespoke classes?
Assuming I follow your line of thought that is.