Search results

Hmm no, subclasses would stay the same as now, but it would open the door for stuff they tried and failed in the past, like the college-based subclasses in Strixhaven that could be used by any class. For example, I have a published setting, Scavenger. In Scavenger, I narratively divide classes...

I don't think so, I think class groups and spell lists IMO make the game more streamlined. Subclasses for class groups would be kept to setting books I imagine.

The issue IMO is specifically multi-classing IMO, but I think multi-classing as is is an abomination that really holds the game's design back in many different ways.

It's not change for the sake of change. That would only be change for the sake of change if you ignored all the benefits I stated in that post.

Tbh I just wish they went ahead with Class Groups, Generic Spell Lists + Class Specific Spells, and Subclass Standardization. Those three things would have opened the floodgates in terms of design. Psionic Spell List, subclasses that grant class-specific spells, subclasses that can be shared by...

What made Strahd do great for you? What were your personal highlights?

I think this is great and how it should be by default. Giving martials one-off spell castings is fun IMO.

I think the basic Knight stat block was generic enough to be included. It's a minor quibble. I also think concepts def matter to them. They remove IP names like "Tasha" from spell names like "Tasha's Hideous Laughter," so the IP is def a big thing they're looking to protect.

The OGL debacle probably did unironically impact some of their decisions to roll things back since they lost valuable UA time.

It's weird that they put Knight in there -- it is essentially impossible to prevent people from mentioning the word "knight" or even a creature called a Knight, especially if they have even slightly different stats. Like yeah, I'm not making Helmed Horrors, I'm not making Yuan-TI, I'm not making...

This IMO is less a failure of the rules and their potential to benefit and improve the game and more a failure of WotC adequately explaining their vision and ideas and how they foresaw things growing from there.

WotC has shown interest in generic subclasses before but couldn't pull it off due to the issues with standardized leveling. FUrthermore, some classes, like Rogue, have a large gap that hurts the flavor and mechanics of their subclass from 3-9, or some came on so late they are almost never...

Honestly, yes, but lots of people are afraid of it even though it isn't something to be afraid of.

This is it. I can't say that my book is a first party D&D book, but I can say that my books is meant to be played with D&D or compatible with it.

Part of the reason I feel they didn't spark joy is because they came out of nowhere and with little to support them. It was as if WotC didn't want to give these ideas a full chance and jumped at the chance to can them. But even then, class groups is just one of several things that got rolled...

But with the proposed changes in early UA -- class groups, for example -- how does that prevent you from using content with minor tweaks?

I'm not sure what your assassin example proves or what you're getting at, and I have no idea what you're responding to with the third line.

I'm not sure you groked my point. I never said there would be issues. But there wouldn't be issues if we had standardized subclasses too, as well as a short guide for when to gain old subclass features. Backwards compatibility to keep the subclass levels at the same is a total non-argument IMO.

Are we winning yet?

Oh well in that case, yes, it is more of a business. I think it's easy to reskin though, a lot of the stuff is essentially the same things you'd do with a guild or something. However, if you're wanting strongholds that aren't essentially a guild base or organization base, then yes, it doesn't...