Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="isdestroyer" data-source="post: 7701232" data-attributes="member: 87677">You are correct in that I have little experience with Essentials, but I am aware that 5E has been mostly adventures, and I approve of that.  The angle I am coming from is WotC's stated goal of incorporating all of the previous editions into 5E, which includes 3.5, which Pathfinder is based on.  Most of my experience is Pathfinder, and I hope that WotC learns from PF's mistakes.  Yes, PF is doing extremely well, and I like the game, at it's heart, and I love the adventures and everything they do for GM's, but they still publish mostly for the players.I really feel that there needs to be clearly defined class roles, like 4E had.  Leader, Controller, Defender, Striker, and maybe one more I'm forgetting (I'ts been a long time since I played 4E).  This way, you don't have any fumbling about with a class that requires numerous updates because no one knows what to do with it.  Each of those roles can have more than one class associated with it, as long as those classes feel distinct from one another.  For example, in PF's Ultimate Magic, Paizo introduced the Magus.  Thematically, this is my favorite class after Paladin because it fills a combat niche that the other classes don't, that of a warrior that casts spells at the same time he fights with a sword.  Under the 4E system, the Magus would be a Striker, but he does this differently than the Rogue, or Barbarian (which I feel can be emulated by the Fighter).  Unlike the Eldritch Knight prestige class, The Magus fills this niche right from level 1 and you don't have to jump through hoops to do it.Fewer classes does mean less complexity, because it's not the player that has to worry about all of them, but the GM.  The GM has to keep all of those class options in his head and balance his encounters and challenges around what the players choose.  Instead of saying to a new player "fit your concept to one of these specific classes, even though it might have abilities that don't fit that concept", say; "as a Fighter, you can be a warrior from a barbaric land like Conan, or a skilled tracker and swordsman like Aragorn.  The limit is your imagination!"  This would also lessen the mental load on the GM, not having to know the many abilities of multiple classes.  And you don't have to stuff "Ranger stuff" into the Rogue, but you spread those concepts around, and make multiclassing easier and more viable (while not alienating singe-classed specs).Also, I understand that at this point, the argument; "you might as well make your own game", will get bandied about, the point is, is that if WotC is soliciting advice for how to improve the game they made, then they need to consider the fact that some things just don't work as intended, and should be reconsidered as part of the game.  There is nothing stopping them (if enough people demand it) reprinting the PHB and DMG with reorganized classes that have a clearly defined purpose and mechanically fit the world.</blockquote>

Verification