Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenstone.Walker" data-source="post: 7325954" data-attributes="member: 6788312">I like the idea of different classes being, well, different. Prepared casters vs point-buy casters, for example. Rage-based fighters vs prepared ones. I don't like it when classes have the same mechanics but different fluff. For example, I don't really see a need for bard and sorcerer to be different classes. They are both casters who know spells rather than prepare them each day (like the wizard). Why not just have a known-spell class and a prepared-spell class?To me there doesn't actually seem that much difference between a D&amp;D 5E barbarian, fighter, bard and rogue. Even the paladin and ranger just seem like fighters with some spells. I don't see how that couldn't be done a lot simpler with a base class called warrior and a pile of non-exclusive options like &quot;rage&quot; and &quot;cast a few spells&quot; and &quot;sneak attack&quot;.One of the game systems I've been reading lately is Fantasy AGE/Dragon Age. It has three classes: Warrior (heavy weapons), Rogue (light weapons, acrobatic rather than armoured), and Mage. Each class has talents and specializations which you can choose at certain levels. Talents and specializations have three levels, so you can become a master of one talent or instead be a journeyman in three different talents. Some of the talents are only usable by one class but most are open to all classes.I like the small number of choices. I also like that few choices lock you in to one path. Your choice at level 3 doesn't block your level 5 choices much.I think something like this could work in D&amp;D. For example, a &quot;barbarian&quot; is a warrior who took &quot;rage&quot; at level 3 and a &quot;fighter&quot; is one who took &quot;heavy armour&quot; instead. For example, a multiclass fighter/rogue is just a warrior who took &quot;sneak attack&quot; at level 3 and &quot;extra attack&quot; at level 5.In summary, I like there being a small number of choices at each level (3-5) and I like having choices made early not locking out choices made later. I also don't like multiclassing, so class design that reduces or eliminates the need for it is a bonus in my book.As an aside, this is a really interesting thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenstone.Walker, post: 7325954, member: 6788312"] I like the idea of different classes being, well, different. Prepared casters vs point-buy casters, for example. Rage-based fighters vs prepared ones. I don't like it when classes have the same mechanics but different fluff. For example, I don't really see a need for bard and sorcerer to be different classes. They are both casters who know spells rather than prepare them each day (like the wizard). Why not just have a known-spell class and a prepared-spell class? To me there doesn't actually seem that much difference between a D&D 5E barbarian, fighter, bard and rogue. Even the paladin and ranger just seem like fighters with some spells. I don't see how that couldn't be done a lot simpler with a base class called warrior and a pile of non-exclusive options like "rage" and "cast a few spells" and "sneak attack". One of the game systems I've been reading lately is Fantasy AGE/Dragon Age. It has three classes: Warrior (heavy weapons), Rogue (light weapons, acrobatic rather than armoured), and Mage. Each class has talents and specializations which you can choose at certain levels. Talents and specializations have three levels, so you can become a master of one talent or instead be a journeyman in three different talents. Some of the talents are only usable by one class but most are open to all classes. I like the small number of choices. I also like that few choices lock you in to one path. Your choice at level 3 doesn't block your level 5 choices much. I think something like this could work in D&D. For example, a "barbarian" is a warrior who took "rage" at level 3 and a "fighter" is one who took "heavy armour" instead. For example, a multiclass fighter/rogue is just a warrior who took "sneak attack" at level 3 and "extra attack" at level 5. In summary, I like there being a small number of choices at each level (3-5) and I like having choices made early not locking out choices made later. I also don't like multiclassing, so class design that reduces or eliminates the need for it is a bonus in my book. As an aside, this is a really interesting thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification