Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 5987731" data-attributes="member: 50304">If you can build a character that feels like an old-school monk when you play it then you've lost nothing. People who pitch deal-breaker fits over every detail of the build not being included directly into a stand-alone class aren't going to be happy with anything you do in 5E so they aren't potential customers.Let me introduce you to my friend Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. It has 5 classes - Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, and Monk. Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Assassin, Illusionist, are all sub-classes. People played the daylights out of that game. It eventually fell out of favor with the majority of the customer base for other systems that allowed customization of some of the features that AD&amp;D included as class or sub-class based or just generally hand-waived.Contrast 4th Edition which claimed to put a strong emphasis on options but ultimately was so class-centric it had to roll out 5 PHBs plus splat-books over years and years to support play-styles that were demanded on day one. (Hint: If it takes until Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms to get a damage-focused Greatweapon Fighter you're doing something wrong.) Complaints included &quot;feat taxes,&quot; poor functionality in multi-classing, no viable skill development, and weak customization options in general. Basically if you wanted to do something you had to wait for them to bother to print a silo'd class that did it. The only saving grace was 4E wasn't as averse to overlap between classes as prior editions had been so you weren't quite as straight-jacketed to a theme in exchange for functionality.- Marty Lund</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mlund, post: 5987731, member: 50304"] If you can build a character that feels like an old-school monk when you play it then you've lost nothing. People who pitch deal-breaker fits over every detail of the build not being included directly into a stand-alone class aren't going to be happy with anything you do in 5E so they aren't potential customers. Let me introduce you to my friend Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. It has 5 classes - Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, and Monk. Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Assassin, Illusionist, are all sub-classes. People played the daylights out of that game. It eventually fell out of favor with the majority of the customer base for other systems that allowed customization of some of the features that AD&D included as class or sub-class based or just generally hand-waived. Contrast 4th Edition which claimed to put a strong emphasis on options but ultimately was so class-centric it had to roll out 5 PHBs plus splat-books over years and years to support play-styles that were demanded on day one. (Hint: If it takes until Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms to get a damage-focused Greatweapon Fighter you're doing something wrong.) Complaints included "feat taxes," poor functionality in multi-classing, no viable skill development, and weak customization options in general. Basically if you wanted to do something you had to wait for them to bother to print a silo'd class that did it. The only saving grace was 4E wasn't as averse to overlap between classes as prior editions had been so you weren't quite as straight-jacketed to a theme in exchange for functionality. - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]

Verification