Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 7320654" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Half of the problem with the poll and the ensuing discussion is that the classes aren't actually defined by anything other than name.Several people might have voted that they want a &quot;Witch&quot; class, but each have a different concept as to what that might be. Someone looking at the poll, seeing demand for a witch and creating a class called 'Witch' may be disappointed at a poor reception because it doesn't match the concept that others had in their head when they think 'Witch'.Likewise, some of the &quot;Alchemist&quot; voters might want a class based of alchemical concepts: transformation and purification. Others just want a potion and bomb merchant: &quot;the pathfinder alchemist, but in 5e&quot;.I'd like to see an Artificer class. But to me, the artificer means the Eberron Artificer: a magical artisan. To many others, an artificer is an inventor, or a mechanical tinkerer, or a mad scientist. Should a &quot;D&amp;D Ninja&quot; be the historical spy, the Hollywood martial-artist-in-black-pyjamas, or the fantasy shadow-themed magical assassin?And as for the Warlord . . . Yeeaah. Don't want to touch that tin of wyrms with a 10ft glaive-guisarme-voulge. There is a demand of sorts: Two players have asked to play that concept. For one, I hacked the Battlemaster, the other required pretty minimal adjustment to the Bard. Both seemed to satisfy their respective players. However I don't have the knowledge or inclination to try to replicate the 4e warlord in all its capabilities and maneuvers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 7320654, member: 6802951"] Half of the problem with the poll and the ensuing discussion is that the classes aren't actually defined by anything other than name. Several people might have voted that they want a "Witch" class, but each have a different concept as to what that might be. Someone looking at the poll, seeing demand for a witch and creating a class called 'Witch' may be disappointed at a poor reception because it doesn't match the concept that others had in their head when they think 'Witch'. Likewise, some of the "Alchemist" voters might want a class based of alchemical concepts: transformation and purification. Others just want a potion and bomb merchant: "the pathfinder alchemist, but in 5e". I'd like to see an Artificer class. But to me, the artificer means the Eberron Artificer: a magical artisan. To many others, an artificer is an inventor, or a mechanical tinkerer, or a mad scientist. Should a "D&D Ninja" be the historical spy, the Hollywood martial-artist-in-black-pyjamas, or the fantasy shadow-themed magical assassin? And as for the Warlord . . . Yeeaah. Don't want to touch that tin of wyrms with a 10ft glaive-guisarme-voulge. There is a demand of sorts: Two players have asked to play that concept. For one, I hacked the Battlemaster, the other required pretty minimal adjustment to the Bard. Both seemed to satisfy their respective players. However I don't have the knowledge or inclination to try to replicate the 4e warlord in all its capabilities and maneuvers. [/QUOTE]

Verification