Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8453774" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't particularly care for the phrasing of the question.That is, calling the latter option &quot;narrow&quot; isn't really what I like, but I do prefer a non-restrictive number of classes. I think 4e was a bit too much, since a few of its classes could've just been variations of other classes (Seeker and Runepriest primarily), but somewhere on the order of 20 classes is good by me. For example, everything in the 5e PHB, plus:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Warlord</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Warden</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Shaman</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Avenger</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Swordmage</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Artificer (already added to 5e, I know, just being thorough)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Assassin...maybe (I can see the argument for folding it into Rogue)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Something psionic, independent of other classes</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Monster...maybe (you could make subclasses for various famous monsters: Vampire, Werewolf, Mindflayer, Beholder, Android, etc. It'd be fun!)</li>
</ul>That's 6 classes over 5e's current lineup of 13 (counting Artificer), if you exclude my two &quot;maybe&quot; things. That's only 19. So ditch Assassin, keep Monster as a &quot;for fun&quot; option (e.g. not entirely serious...but something that can work even in a serious game if you want it to), and I'd call that a pretty ample set. It would be hard to add whole new classes to that lineup without stepping on toes, which is why&nbsp; you'd focus on subclasses from there on out. Explore possibilities, let things breathe, really dig into questions of what the baseline chassis can support, etc.Obviously each one should bring distinctive mechanics to make it worthwhile to play that class instead of kinda-similar things. E.g. Avenger is not a Paladin (they don't wear plate) nor are they Rogues (they use huge two-handed weapons and are powered by divine magic), but they have certain similarities to each. That means offering both thematic and mechanical difference is important.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8453774, member: 6790260"] I don't particularly care for the phrasing of the question. That is, calling the latter option "narrow" isn't really what I like, but I do prefer a non-restrictive number of classes. I think 4e was a bit too much, since a few of its classes could've just been variations of other classes (Seeker and Runepriest primarily), but somewhere on the order of 20 classes is good by me. For example, everything in the 5e PHB, plus: [LIST] [*]Warlord [*]Warden [*]Shaman [*]Avenger [*]Swordmage [*]Artificer (already added to 5e, I know, just being thorough) [*]Assassin...maybe (I [I]can[/I] see the argument for folding it into Rogue) [*][I]Something[/I] psionic, independent of other classes [*]Monster...maybe (you could make subclasses for various famous monsters: Vampire, Werewolf, Mindflayer, Beholder, Android, etc. It'd be fun!) [/LIST] That's 6 classes over 5e's current lineup of 13 (counting Artificer), if you exclude my two "maybe" things. That's only 19. So ditch Assassin, keep Monster as a "for fun" option (e.g. not entirely serious...but something that can work even in a serious game if you want it to), and I'd call that a pretty ample set. It would be hard to add whole new classes to that lineup without stepping on toes, which is why you'd focus on subclasses from there on out. Explore possibilities, let things breathe, really dig into questions of what the baseline chassis can support, etc. Obviously each one should bring distinctive mechanics to make it worthwhile to play that class instead of kinda-similar things. E.g. Avenger is not a Paladin (they don't wear plate) nor are they Rogues (they use huge two-handed weapons and are powered by divine magic), but they have certain similarities to each. That means offering both thematic and mechanical difference is important. [/QUOTE]

Verification