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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6272471" data-attributes="member: 20323">I am switching to my prescriptive voice now. I absolutely think this is what should happen. The fighter class should have siloed non-combat abilities (that cannot be swapped for combat ones) that enforce the major fighter archetypes distinct from barbarians, paladins, and rangers. Think of all the 2e examples of fighters from myth and history, and you'll have a whole wealth of ideas to draw from. Something akin to 4e's "utility powers" (which fell flat IMO because they were almost entirely about combat), only focused exclusively on non-combat. I can't imagine a player arguing that they "lack choice on their character abilities" in such a scenario, and if they said that I would immediately suspect they were just bitching to power game.I know @Ahnenhnois and others support a non-class system. For D&D I disagree - class should be the main character engine. Note that doesn't mean we should have things like class skills; I'm thinking about the bigger play-style mechanics. And the main rules should support a plethora of non-combat abilities for *all* classes, either with an extremely robust skill system (like D&D has never seen) or robust class talents or something.The important thing (and one of the reasons why I started this thread) is to avoid a <a href="http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0" target="_blank">tiered class system </a> where certain classes are objectively more effective than others in multiple areas.</blockquote>

Verification