|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 9:28AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2012
|
I am not sure I understand why it matters if someone else is better then you. If you want to be the best at it then sink in the neccesary effort and choices. by stats distribution and choosing the skill focus feat.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 9:37AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
To be honest I see no need for other classes.. If the backgrounds and specialties are used and maybe a few added one can create a ranger, paladin, druid or bard. In fact you have more range of options. A Paladin can be more divine (cleric with warrior tendencies) or less (Fighter with a few religious traits ) the rest is flavor. Alot of the secondary classes are flavor and skill choice and perhaps a feat or trait of significance.
keeping it to the basic four would keep with idea of streamlining game.
Back 20+ years ago when playing basic DND I played a Cleric who was pretty much a mounted soldier (sans lance as the old stipulation). Also played a religiously minded warrior who was a holy Templar, did he have spells or lay hands or anything, no, but so what he was a devoted follower and actually through game play became an anointed priest.
I would be unhappy if they didn't give us other classes to the point of probably exclusively using Pathfinder. I'm sure lots of others would go to alternate RPGs for more options. Backgrounds and specialties just do not give you all the features that other classes do. A druid cannot be created from specialties and backgrounds because then you would lack key features such as wild shaping.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 9:38AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2012
|
wild shaping could be a channel divinity power.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 9:43AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I am not sure I understand why it matters if someone else is better then you. If you want to be the best at it then sink in the neccesary effort and choices. by stats distribution and choosing the skill focus feat.
?
It matters because you said the flavor is that you're good at something. That's why it matters. If it didn't, you wouldn't have that flavor.
Oh, and if there isn't a way to to at-will wildshaping, I'm going to be very sad.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 9:59AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2012
|
being good at something does not mean the same as you are better than someone else.
So if you want to say I am Joe the master tracker, well at first level you are probably not joe the master tracker, you are joe the i am pretty good tracker.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:03AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Basic-only classes is a terrible idea.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:14AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2012
|
is a terrible idea in your opinion, and maybe in other peoples opinions. But just as I think that you all are allowed to voice an opinion I am allowed to as well.
i mean really people no need to atatck an idea that conflicts with your opinion without saying in my opinion or i disagree with this opinion. Basic courtesy
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:46AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
I find it very easy to convert classes from other editions to 5th Ed.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:51AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
I still think its a terrible idea. When I look at a class I want it to have different features than the other classes. I wouldn't want a basics-only class. I love having lots of class options to choose from.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:59AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2012
|
but why?
|
|
|
