Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5984505" data-attributes="member: 32536">Actually, I'd love it if those last three were also separate classes. We don't need a Wizard. We need a Necromancer, an Elemental Mage, and a Psion. That would seriously make the game better.There really isn't any point in trying to combine classes. A class-based game thrives on having more classes. We should be trying to break down the Fighter and turn it into a dozen different classes, not trying to fold different class ideas into the Fighter. The same goes for the Wizard and Cleric.4E made some nice improvements to the game when it broke the Druid up into several different classes. The Druid focused on the wildshape and controller abilities, while the Shaman took most of the animal companion and healing abilities. This turned one confused class into two distinct and much-better focused classes. This is what needs to be done for more classes.Who needs a Fighter when we can instead have a Knight and a Slayer?That said, if for some reason you don't want a pure Monk class in the game, I wouldn't mind a revival of the Tome of Battle's Swordsage class. I always considered that to be the improved Monk, just like the Warblade was the improved Fighter. I don't see what is wrong with Monks in D&amp;D, though. D&amp;D doesn't need to be slavishly eurocentric. It's a fantasy game, not a depcition of some place in Earth's history. Maybe we can add some Ninjas to the core rules to give the Monks some company. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 5984505, member: 32536"] Actually, I'd love it if those last three were also separate classes. We don't need a Wizard. We need a Necromancer, an Elemental Mage, and a Psion. That would seriously make the game better. There really isn't any point in trying to combine classes. A class-based game thrives on having more classes. We should be trying to break down the Fighter and turn it into a dozen different classes, not trying to fold different class ideas into the Fighter. The same goes for the Wizard and Cleric. 4E made some nice improvements to the game when it broke the Druid up into several different classes. The Druid focused on the wildshape and controller abilities, while the Shaman took most of the animal companion and healing abilities. This turned one confused class into two distinct and much-better focused classes. This is what needs to be done for more classes. Who needs a Fighter when we can instead have a Knight and a Slayer? That said, if for some reason you don't want a pure Monk class in the game, I wouldn't mind a revival of the Tome of Battle's Swordsage class. I always considered that to be the improved Monk, just like the Warblade was the improved Fighter. I don't see what is wrong with Monks in D&D, though. D&D doesn't need to be slavishly eurocentric. It's a fantasy game, not a depcition of some place in Earth's history. Maybe we can add some Ninjas to the core rules to give the Monks some company. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification