Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ArchfiendBobbie" data-source="post: 6973677" data-attributes="member: 6867728">To be honest, the main reason why DnD and its offshoots have always been massively prone to class bloat is because of refusal to reflavor existing rules. UA is reflecting that, which is why the Knight option shows up again; there are people actually demanding it because the background is not enough for them. Back before 3E, when multiclassing was a nightmare, this made sense; from 3E on, it has been more of a legacy problem than anything else, and it's a sacred cow that really should be put out to pasture.You have to pick your poison. You can either continue with the lack of reflavoring and get the 20,000 useless redundant subclasses, or accept reflavoring and have to create the options you want. DnD has proven repeatedly that, with this game at least, there is no middle ground.It should also be noted that the knight, even in real life, is both a background and a martial archetype. Even during the medieval era, there were people who had knighthoods that never fought, and there were knights who showed up regularly on the field of battle. Like the samurai, where the proper answer to the argument is that it's all three, the knight is something that cannot be properly modeled within 5E's system accurately without either some heavy reflavoring or a lot of redundancy. Both knighthood and being a samurai is something you could be born into or something you could earn (and both are also nobility). Adding mechanical considerations to backgrounds is one of the biggest flaws the 5E ruleset has, due to the resulting problems in recreating things such as your typical knight or samurai.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ArchfiendBobbie, post: 6973677, member: 6867728"] To be honest, the main reason why DnD and its offshoots have always been massively prone to class bloat is because of refusal to reflavor existing rules. UA is reflecting that, which is why the Knight option shows up again; there are people actually demanding it because the background is not enough for them. Back before 3E, when multiclassing was a nightmare, this made sense; from 3E on, it has been more of a legacy problem than anything else, and it's a sacred cow that really should be put out to pasture. You have to pick your poison. You can either continue with the lack of reflavoring and get the 20,000 useless redundant subclasses, or accept reflavoring and have to create the options you want. DnD has proven repeatedly that, with this game at least, there is no middle ground. It should also be noted that the knight, even in real life, is [I]both[/I] a background and a martial archetype. Even during the medieval era, there were people who had knighthoods that never fought, and there were knights who showed up regularly on the field of battle. Like the samurai, where the proper answer to the argument is that it's all three, the knight is something that cannot be properly modeled within 5E's system accurately without either some heavy reflavoring or a lot of redundancy. Both knighthood and being a samurai is something you could be born into or something you could earn (and both are also nobility). Adding mechanical considerations to backgrounds is one of the biggest flaws the 5E ruleset has, due to the resulting problems in recreating things such as your typical knight or samurai. [/QUOTE]

Verification