Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9311573" data-attributes="member: 7037866">That is exactly what it is. But the features of subclasses, feats, etc. don't &quot;replicate the abilities&quot;, the grant the abilities. That might not be what you meant by &quot;replicate&quot;, so I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page.Also, personally everything you need to create the feel for the concept you want to play should be in the subclass, and not rely on feats or spells to give those abilities.I think it depends on the degree of overarching reach for the class, and then how much gets regulated to the subclass.I understand this point. The signature abilities don't have to be watered down, however. I like to think of it this way: instead of the core class providing the bulk to the concept, and the subclass the finishing touches, it is reversed: the core class provides general features common to many concepts, the subclasses really nail down the distinctions.Now, admittedly with the Cleric/Warlock and Wizard/Sorcerer subclasses, we didn't do that, but that is because 5E uses the first model. If we completely revamped all the classes, it would be more like the second option.LOL it is funny you mentioned Barbarian. We've felt for a LONG time now that is should be a background choice. So, you could have a Cleric (priest, etc.) who comes from &quot;barbarian tribes&quot;, or a Ranger, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ezo, post: 9311573, member: 7037866"] That is exactly what it is. But the features of subclasses, feats, etc. don't "replicate the abilities", the grant the abilities. That might not be what you meant by "replicate", so I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. Also, personally everything you need to create the feel for the concept you want to play should be in the subclass, and not rely on feats or spells to give those abilities. I think it depends on the degree of overarching reach for the class, and then how much gets regulated to the subclass. I understand this point. The signature abilities don't have to be watered down, however. I like to think of it this way: instead of the core class providing the bulk to the concept, and the subclass the finishing touches, it is reversed: the core class provides general features common to many concepts, the subclasses really nail down the distinctions. Now, admittedly with the Cleric/Warlock and Wizard/Sorcerer subclasses, we didn't do that, but that is because 5E uses the first model. If we completely revamped all the classes, it would be more like the second option. LOL it is funny you mentioned Barbarian. We've felt for a LONG time now that is should be a background choice. So, you could have a Cleric (priest, etc.) who comes from "barbarian tribes", or a Ranger, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification