A Deathknight is a specific thing that has existed in fantasy for quite some time.
Incorrect. While there are a fair number of undead knights in fantasy, their exact capabilities are not well defined unless you're specifically referencing a D&D deathknight, and even then its a question of "which version of deathknight".
...you've been playing and DMing in DnD for 30+ years and you don't know what an Oathbreaker Paladin is?
Further objection. What does it matter if you, personally, have no idea what a Death Knight is, when other people do? How is you not knowing what one is a reason for WotC to not make one?
I assume an Oathbreaker is one of the man sub-versions of a normal Paladin, my point was I don't care to know what an Oathbreak Paladin is.
My objection is that a Death Knight is a very specific setting thing. I object it being part of the core rules in the same way I object to having a Jedi Class. If you want to create a separate book where D&D characters can become Jedi's and swing around lightsabres, by all means do so, but don't try to squeeze that BS into the Forgotten Realms or the core rulebook. Its the bloody Dragonborn all over again.
I want Wizards of the Coast to give me a basic, standard version of D&D and if they want to make other setting specific stuff, create special rules or whatever, by god do it, just do it somewhere else.
D&D is a very specific thing, its not "everything", its a very specific "that thing". I want 6th edition to be a normal version of D&D, one that adheres to the classic sensibilities on which the franchise was built. I don't want any bloody Dragonborn or Tyfling or Paladins who reject the idea of being a Paladin, or ones that cast Arcane spells or are undead ones or whatever the hell. Just make a normal version of D&D and if you want to create all of the other nonsense, do so in a setting book. Setting books are great, they expand the game without infiltrating upon its core. Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Ranger, Druid... those are D&D classes. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling.. those are D&D classes. If you want to make a Half-Dragonborn, Half-Giant, Undead, Athiest Paladin who shoots fireballs out of his ass... do it by all means.. just do in some splat book that I can ignore.
they WERE classes, and some of them still are. If you haven't noticed, the classes now are artificer, barbarian, bard, Cleric, druid, fighter, monk, ranger, paladin,Rogue, Sorcerer, warlock and wizard. I have no clue what a tyfling is, but tieflings are in the PHB if that is what you are looking for! 'Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling.. those are D&D classes'......no thwy are races. there are lots of others as well, WotC is coming out with more in nearly every book. Half dragonborn and half giant have never existed in 5e to my knowledge, but maybe someday soon! Paladins cannot cast fireball as of now.
Had you been writing this comment a year ago it would be missing the artificer and you'd still sound just as condescending. If you hadn't noticed people would like those classes the were in previous editions, for a number of reasons and you aren't exactly coming up with any arguments as to why they should be added. They can add some more base classes to open up the few remaining holes in the class options. Things like an arcane, melee-focused, half-caster, or a divine, spell focused half-caster, or a martial, support-focused, class. It's not like it's against the rules for them to exist nor is it beyond the scope of 5th edition. Implying that whilst they were classes they aren't classes now isn't actually of any use here. You may as well have just ticked no in the questionnaire and left it at that.
You mean, you don't want WotC to come up with an official Death Knight?
It even has a very nice flavour text explaining what a Death Knight is, and how they happen:
When a paladin that falls from grace dies without seeking atonement, dark powers can transform the once-mortal knight into a hateful undead creature. A death knight is a skeletal warrior clad in fearsome plate armor. Beneath its helmet, one can see the knight’s skull with malevolent pinpoints of light burning in its eye sockets.
They already have the monster, creating a (sub-) class to enable that kind of character doesn't sound too far-fetched. And a Death Knight seeking atonement to be redeemed from their undead fate sounds actually a lot more interesting than yet another "I smite evil because I'm righteous" Paladin. :D
...you've been playing and DMing in DnD for 30+ years and you don't know what an Oathbreaker Paladin is?
Further objection. What does it matter if you, personally, have no idea what a Death Knight is, when other people do? How is you not knowing what one is a reason for WotC to not make one?
I assume an Oathbreaker is one of the man sub-versions of a normal Paladin, my point was I don't care to know what an Oathbreak Paladin is.
My objection is that a Death Knight is a very specific setting thing. I object it being part of the core rules in the same way I object to having a Jedi Class. If you want to create a separate book where D&D characters can become Jedi's and swing around lightsabres, by all means do so, but don't try to squeeze that BS into the Forgotten Realms or the core rulebook. Its the bloody Dragonborn all over again.
I want Wizards of the Coast to give me a basic, standard version of D&D and if they want to make other setting specific stuff, create special rules or whatever, by god do it, just do it somewhere else.
D&D is a very specific thing, its not "everything", its a very specific "that thing". I want 6th edition to be a normal version of D&D, one that adheres to the classic sensibilities on which the franchise was built. I don't want any bloody Dragonborn or Tyfling or Paladins who reject the idea of being a Paladin, or ones that cast Arcane spells or are undead ones or whatever the hell. Just make a normal version of D&D and if you want to create all of the other nonsense, do so in a setting book. Setting books are great, they expand the game without infiltrating upon its core. Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Ranger, Druid... those are D&D classes. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling.. those are D&D classes. If you want to make a Half-Dragonborn, Half-Giant, Undead, Athiest Paladin who shoots fireballs out of his ass... do it by all means.. just do in some splat book that I can ignore.
they WERE classes, and some of them still are. If you haven't noticed, the classes now are artificer, barbarian, bard, Cleric, druid, fighter, monk, ranger, paladin,Rogue, Sorcerer, warlock and wizard. I have no clue what a tyfling is, but tieflings are in the PHB if that is what you are looking for! 'Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling.. those are D&D classes'......no thwy are races. there are lots of others as well, WotC is coming out with more in nearly every book. Half dragonborn and half giant have never existed in 5e to my knowledge, but maybe someday soon! Paladins cannot cast fireball as of now.
Had you been writing this comment a year ago it would be missing the artificer and you'd still sound just as condescending. If you hadn't noticed people would like those classes the were in previous editions, for a number of reasons and you aren't exactly coming up with any arguments as to why they should be added. They can add some more base classes to open up the few remaining holes in the class options. Things like an arcane, melee-focused, half-caster, or a divine, spell focused half-caster, or a martial, support-focused, class. It's not like it's against the rules for them to exist nor is it beyond the scope of 5th edition. Implying that whilst they were classes they aren't classes now isn't actually of any use here. You may as well have just ticked no in the questionnaire and left it at that.
Lol, I am not writing this comment a year ago, and the artificer exists. It was not meant to be condescending or smug, just positive. Maybe that is what some people want, but the way he wrote it, implying that WotC are trying to make the game worse, and telling them how to fix it, just rubbed me the wrong way.
then I linked him to a sourcebook that might fit his playstyle better.
nothing wrong with that, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
You mean, you don't want WotC to come up with an official Death Knight?
It even has a very nice flavour text explaining what a Death Knight is, and how they happen:
When a paladin that falls from grace dies without seeking atonement, dark powers can transform the once-mortal knight into a hateful undead creature. A death knight is a skeletal warrior clad in fearsome plate armor. Beneath its helmet, one can see the knight’s skull with malevolent pinpoints of light burning in its eye sockets.
They already have the monster, creating a (sub-) class to enable that kind of character doesn't sound too far-fetched. And a Death Knight seeking atonement to be redeemed from their undead fate sounds actually a lot more interesting than yet another "I smite evil because I'm righteous" Paladin. :D
yes please. I like the idea of an 'I smite evil cause it is competition'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
You mean, you don't want WotC to come up with an official Death Knight?
It even has a very nice flavour text explaining what a Death Knight is, and how they happen:
When a paladin that falls from grace dies without seeking atonement, dark powers can transform the once-mortal knight into a hateful undead creature. A death knight is a skeletal warrior clad in fearsome plate armor. Beneath its helmet, one can see the knight’s skull with malevolent pinpoints of light burning in its eye sockets.
They already have the monster, creating a (sub-) class to enable that kind of character doesn't sound too far-fetched. And a Death Knight seeking atonement to be redeemed from their undead fate sounds actually a lot more interesting than yet another "I smite evil because I'm righteous" Paladin. :D
yes please. I like the idea of an 'I smite evil cause it is competition'
For some reason this reminds me of Alucard from Hellsing...
The Paladin bit was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :-) I know there are more ways to play a Paladin, but a Death Knight sounds like it would make for an interesting character I'd like to see in my campaigns. :-)
You mean, you don't want WotC to come up with an official Death Knight?
It even has a very nice flavour text explaining what a Death Knight is, and how they happen:
When a paladin that falls from grace dies without seeking atonement, dark powers can transform the once-mortal knight into a hateful undead creature. A death knight is a skeletal warrior clad in fearsome plate armor. Beneath its helmet, one can see the knight’s skull with malevolent pinpoints of light burning in its eye sockets.
They already have the monster, creating a (sub-) class to enable that kind of character doesn't sound too far-fetched. And a Death Knight seeking atonement to be redeemed from their undead fate sounds actually a lot more interesting than yet another "I smite evil because I'm righteous" Paladin. :D
yes please. I like the idea of an 'I smite evil cause it is competition'
For some reason this reminds me of Alucars from Hellsing...
The Paladin bit was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :-) I know there are more ways to play a Paladin, but a Death Knight sounds like it would make for an interesting character I'd like to see in my campaigns. :-)
same here
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
...you've been playing and DMing in DnD for 30+ years and you don't know what an Oathbreaker Paladin is?
Further objection. What does it matter if you, personally, have no idea what a Death Knight is, when other people do? How is you not knowing what one is a reason for WotC to not make one?
I assume an Oathbreaker is one of the man sub-versions of a normal Paladin, my point was I don't care to know what an Oathbreak Paladin is.
My objection is that a Death Knight is a very specific setting thing. I object it being part of the core rules in the same way I object to having a Jedi Class. If you want to create a separate book where D&D characters can become Jedi's and swing around lightsabres, by all means do so, but don't try to squeeze that BS into the Forgotten Realms or the core rulebook. Its the bloody Dragonborn all over again.
I want Wizards of the Coast to give me a basic, standard version of D&D and if they want to make other setting specific stuff, create special rules or whatever, by god do it, just do it somewhere else.
D&D is a very specific thing, its not "everything", its a very specific "that thing". I want 6th edition to be a normal version of D&D, one that adheres to the classic sensibilities on which the franchise was built. I don't want any bloody Dragonborn or Tyfling or Paladins who reject the idea of being a Paladin, or ones that cast Arcane spells or are undead ones or whatever the hell. Just make a normal version of D&D and if you want to create all of the other nonsense, do so in a setting book. Setting books are great, they expand the game without infiltrating upon its core. Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Ranger, Druid... those are D&D classes. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling.. those are D&D classes. If you want to make a Half-Dragonborn, Half-Giant, Undead, Athiest Paladin who shoots fireballs out of his ass... do it by all means.. just do in some splat book that I can ignore.
they WERE classes, and some of them still are. If you haven't noticed, the classes now are artificer, barbarian, bard, Cleric, druid, fighter, monk, ranger, paladin,Rogue, Sorcerer, warlock and wizard. I have no clue what a tyfling is, but tieflings are in the PHB if that is what you are looking for! 'Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling.. those are D&D classes'......no thwy are races. there are lots of others as well, WotC is coming out with more in nearly every book. Half dragonborn and half giant have never existed in 5e to my knowledge, but maybe someday soon! Paladins cannot cast fireball as of now.
Had you been writing this comment a year ago it would be missing the artificer and you'd still sound just as condescending. If you hadn't noticed people would like those classes the were in previous editions, for a number of reasons and you aren't exactly coming up with any arguments as to why they should be added. They can add some more base classes to open up the few remaining holes in the class options. Things like an arcane, melee-focused, half-caster, or a divine, spell focused half-caster, or a martial, support-focused, class. It's not like it's against the rules for them to exist nor is it beyond the scope of 5th edition. Implying that whilst they were classes they aren't classes now isn't actually of any use here. You may as well have just ticked no in the questionnaire and left it at that.
Lol, I am not writing this comment a year ago, and the artificer exists. It was not meant to be condescending or smug, just positive. Maybe that is what some people want, but the way he wrote it, implying that WotC are trying to make the game worse, and telling them how to fix it, just rubbed me the wrong way.
then I linked him to a sourcebook that might fit his playstyle better.
nothing wrong with that, right?
No, no nothing wrong with that, I stand corrected. Carry on.
The only things on the Death Knight that you can't do with a generic paladin are Marshal Undead and Hellfire Orb. Marshal Undead is generally not as good a power as Aura of Protection (which the death knight doesn't have), and Hellfire Orb, at 20d6 damage in a 20' radius, is more damage than it's reasonable for a primarily martial class to do.
The only things on the Death Knight that you can't do with a generic paladin are Marshal Undead and Hellfire Orb. Marshal Undead is generally not as good a power as Aura of Protection (which the death knight doesn't have), and Hellfire Orb, at 20d6 damage in a 20' radius, is more damage than it's reasonable for a primarily martial class to do.
I am pretty sure we are talking about a WoW type class rather than an adaption of the monster...... To avoid confusion, we should probably call it an anti paladin.
I want a dragon knight as well. Elemental smites, limited flight, damaging auras......yeah I want a dragon knight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I am pretty sure we are talking about a WoW type class rather than an adaption of the monster...... To avoid confusion, we should probably call it an anti paladin.
I want a dragon knight as well. Elemental smites, limited flight, damaging auras......yeah I want a dragon knight.
I would love more subclasses or a base class themed around dragons. Dragon Knight, Dragon Barbarian, Dragon Monk, Dragon Warlock.....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I am pretty sure we are talking about a WoW type class rather than an adaption of the monster...... To avoid confusion, we should probably call it an anti paladin.
I want a dragon knight as well. Elemental smites, limited flight, damaging auras......yeah I want a dragon knight.
I would love more subclasses or a base class themed around dragons. Dragon Knight, Dragon Barbarian, Dragon Monk, Dragon Warlock.....
dragon druid???
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I am pretty sure we are talking about a WoW type class rather than an adaption of the monster...... To avoid confusion, we should probably call it an anti paladin.
I want a dragon knight as well. Elemental smites, limited flight, damaging auras......yeah I want a dragon knight.
I would love more subclasses or a base class themed around dragons. Dragon Knight, Dragon Barbarian, Dragon Monk, Dragon Warlock.....
dragon druid???
Dragon bard. :D How many stories a being as old as an ancient dragon must know...
I am pretty sure we are talking about a WoW type class rather than an adaption of the monster...... To avoid confusion, we should probably call it an anti paladin.
I want a dragon knight as well. Elemental smites, limited flight, damaging auras......yeah I want a dragon knight.
I would love more subclasses or a base class themed around dragons. Dragon Knight, Dragon Barbarian, Dragon Monk, Dragon Warlock.....
dragon druid???
I mean, I could see that being an Eberron Subclass. The Gatekeeper Druid Order were said to have started as Orcs who were taught the secrets of druidic magic from a black dragon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
(Taking a brief break from brainstorming. Apologies for the rant.)
Okay, the problem with saying "Only real D&D content allowed" is that you're restricting the range of creativity in D&D. Basically, you're telling younger people who are new to D&D that they have no say in what the game should be. This is gatekeeping.
Gatekeeping is “when someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.” There is a major problem with gatekeeping, other than the fact that you're being a dick when you gatekeep. The problem is, you don't own D&D. I don't care how long you've been playing D&D, how many nuns you had to fight off to preserve your AD&D Handbook, or how you have dice older than me. Does any of that freaking matter? No, it doesn't. Thanks for playing the game and keeping it alive long enough for me to discover the game, but you're no more entitled to the identity of D&D than I am. I do like halflings, orcs, goblins, and many other older D&D creatures, but that doesn't mean that D&D has to be restricted to that.
Additionally, you're following a tradition for no reason other than the fact that it is tradition. Traditions are fine. I have no problem with traditions, generally. What I do have a problem with is following tradition only because it is tradition. That's what you're doing in this case, if you are telling people that D&D's core rules have to only have content from early editions. You want it in the game because it was what was in the game before. You want the scope of D&D to conform to your needs for the game to be static. When you do this, not only are you being a jerk and gatekeeper, but you're telling people that their ideas and creativity do not matter. Ooh, cool arcane gish half-caster who can put a fireball in their flail? Nope. Not allowed. You must be X years of age to be valid in the core rules. It doesn't matter how cool or positive this change would be to add to the game, you block it simply because it's new, and you're scared of new things. I'm sorry to break it to you, but changes can be positive. If D&D doesn't evolve, it's doomed to die.
So, stop it, please. You're not any more worthy of D&D than I am. I get a say, just like you do. Stop whining about D&D changing, about how dragon people are a base player race, or how artificers don't belong in D&D, because. I. Don't. Effing. Care. What. You. Think. D&D. Should. Be. If you want to limit your own game's potential that way, feel free to, but you have absolutely no right to restrict mine.
D&D can be so much bigger than just a wizard, cleric, fighter, and rogue going into a wizard's lair to save the kingdom. D&D should be bigger than that. Seniority has no validity here, so stop pretending that it does.
So I have only ever played 5E and thus have not played classes like Psicnoics and martial casters. What is a Psionic? What does it do that Wizards, or other arcane casters in 5E, can't do that separate them from being more than subclasses like they are slotted to be in TCoE?
First of all, thank you for the information Naresea.
Second of all, hm. So basically a return to formless dungeon-crawl formats, emphasizing difficult combat over narrative arcs. All right. Simple enough.
...why, precisely, are new base class options incompatible with this approach?
I would imagine that the reason those who subscribe to the OSR don't want more classes is because it doesn't fit what they think D&D should be. Am I right, old school players?
Incorrect. While there are a fair number of undead knights in fantasy, their exact capabilities are not well defined unless you're specifically referencing a D&D deathknight, and even then its a question of "which version of deathknight".
Had you been writing this comment a year ago it would be missing the artificer and you'd still sound just as condescending. If you hadn't noticed people would like those classes the were in previous editions, for a number of reasons and you aren't exactly coming up with any arguments as to why they should be added. They can add some more base classes to open up the few remaining holes in the class options. Things like an arcane, melee-focused, half-caster, or a divine, spell focused half-caster, or a martial, support-focused, class. It's not like it's against the rules for them to exist nor is it beyond the scope of 5th edition. Implying that whilst they were classes they aren't classes now isn't actually of any use here. You may as well have just ticked no in the questionnaire and left it at that.
You mean, you don't want WotC to come up with an official Death Knight?
It even has a very nice flavour text explaining what a Death Knight is, and how they happen:
When a paladin that falls from grace dies without seeking atonement, dark powers can transform the once-mortal knight into a hateful undead creature. A death knight is a skeletal warrior clad in fearsome plate armor. Beneath its helmet, one can see the knight’s skull with malevolent pinpoints of light burning in its eye sockets.
They already have the monster, creating a (sub-) class to enable that kind of character doesn't sound too far-fetched. And a Death Knight seeking atonement to be redeemed from their undead fate sounds actually a lot more interesting than yet another "I smite evil because I'm righteous" Paladin. :D
Side question.
What the hell does 'OSR' mean? I keep hearing that term thrown around, I've not encountered it before. What is it referring to?
Please do not contact or message me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_Revival
Lol, I am not writing this comment a year ago, and the artificer exists. It was not meant to be condescending or smug, just positive. Maybe that is what some people want, but the way he wrote it, implying that WotC are trying to make the game worse, and telling them how to fix it, just rubbed me the wrong way.
then I linked him to a sourcebook that might fit his playstyle better.
nothing wrong with that, right?
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
yes please. I like the idea of an 'I smite evil cause it is competition'
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
For some reason this reminds me of Alucard from Hellsing...
The Paladin bit was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :-) I know there are more ways to play a Paladin, but a Death Knight sounds like it would make for an interesting character I'd like to see in my campaigns. :-)
same here
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
No, no nothing wrong with that, I stand corrected. Carry on.
The only things on the Death Knight that you can't do with a generic paladin are Marshal Undead and Hellfire Orb. Marshal Undead is generally not as good a power as Aura of Protection (which the death knight doesn't have), and Hellfire Orb, at 20d6 damage in a 20' radius, is more damage than it's reasonable for a primarily martial class to do.
I am pretty sure we are talking about a WoW type class rather than an adaption of the monster...... To avoid confusion, we should probably call it an anti paladin.
I want a dragon knight as well. Elemental smites, limited flight, damaging auras......yeah I want a dragon knight.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I would love more subclasses or a base class themed around dragons. Dragon Knight, Dragon Barbarian, Dragon Monk, Dragon Warlock.....
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
dragon druid???
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Dragon bard. :D How many stories a being as old as an ancient dragon must know...
I mean, I could see that being an Eberron Subclass. The Gatekeeper Druid Order were said to have started as Orcs who were taught the secrets of druidic magic from a black dragon.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
(Taking a brief break from brainstorming. Apologies for the rant.)
Okay, the problem with saying "Only real D&D content allowed" is that you're restricting the range of creativity in D&D. Basically, you're telling younger people who are new to D&D that they have no say in what the game should be. This is gatekeeping.
Gatekeeping is “when someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.” There is a major problem with gatekeeping, other than the fact that you're being a dick when you gatekeep. The problem is, you don't own D&D. I don't care how long you've been playing D&D, how many nuns you had to fight off to preserve your AD&D Handbook, or how you have dice older than me. Does any of that freaking matter? No, it doesn't. Thanks for playing the game and keeping it alive long enough for me to discover the game, but you're no more entitled to the identity of D&D than I am. I do like halflings, orcs, goblins, and many other older D&D creatures, but that doesn't mean that D&D has to be restricted to that.
Additionally, you're following a tradition for no reason other than the fact that it is tradition. Traditions are fine. I have no problem with traditions, generally. What I do have a problem with is following tradition only because it is tradition. That's what you're doing in this case, if you are telling people that D&D's core rules have to only have content from early editions. You want it in the game because it was what was in the game before. You want the scope of D&D to conform to your needs for the game to be static. When you do this, not only are you being a jerk and gatekeeper, but you're telling people that their ideas and creativity do not matter. Ooh, cool arcane gish half-caster who can put a fireball in their flail? Nope. Not allowed. You must be X years of age to be valid in the core rules. It doesn't matter how cool or positive this change would be to add to the game, you block it simply because it's new, and you're scared of new things. I'm sorry to break it to you, but changes can be positive. If D&D doesn't evolve, it's doomed to die.
So, stop it, please. You're not any more worthy of D&D than I am. I get a say, just like you do. Stop whining about D&D changing, about how dragon people are a base player race, or how artificers don't belong in D&D, because. I. Don't. Effing. Care. What. You. Think. D&D. Should. Be. If you want to limit your own game's potential that way, feel free to, but you have absolutely no right to restrict mine.
D&D can be so much bigger than just a wizard, cleric, fighter, and rogue going into a wizard's lair to save the kingdom. D&D should be bigger than that. Seniority has no validity here, so stop pretending that it does.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So I have only ever played 5E and thus have not played classes like Psicnoics and martial casters. What is a Psionic? What does it do that Wizards, or other arcane casters in 5E, can't do that separate them from being more than subclasses like they are slotted to be in TCoE?
First of all, thank you for the information Naresea.
Second of all, hm. So basically a return to formless dungeon-crawl formats, emphasizing difficult combat over narrative arcs. All right. Simple enough.
...why, precisely, are new base class options incompatible with this approach?
Please do not contact or message me.
I would imagine that the reason those who subscribe to the OSR don't want more classes is because it doesn't fit what they think D&D should be. Am I right, old school players?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms