Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9311621" data-attributes="member: 7635">Yes, by "replicate" I mean "create characters similar to older edition classes." A "barbarian" subclass for the fighter should feel like its trying to be the same barbarian from 3e-5e with rage, agility, brutal strike, etc. A fighter who has a "monk" subclass should be able to go around doing kung-fu acrobatics and using spirit power. Well, that begs the question of how big or important a subclass should be. Currently, a subclass holds about four abilities (give or take). Is four abilities enough to define a barbarian? a paladin? a monk? Even if you somehow fit the core class concept into four abilities, we are surrendering further specialties. What do we do with the Oath of the Ancients Paladin, the Warrior of Shadow Monk, or the Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian? If four cannot replicate a druid, let alone a Circle of Dreams Druid, how many abilities will? 8? 10? 12? At what point is the subclass basically just being the class? They will have to be watered down to be balanced. The Druid was build around wild shape being a primary feature of the class; you can't just give it to cleric and expect it to work. The same thing with rage, or unarmed combat, or paladin smite. They would all end up being toned down to fit within the chassis of the parent class. Barbarian the class and barbaric backgrounds are again two different ways to expressing the same concept. 5e currently lets us do that because 5e allows for a lot of redundancy in builds. Stripping that away doesn't make thing larger, it forces the options to fall into specific niches. A very important design rule of thumb is that for most players, if there isn't a mechanical expression, it doesn't exist. There is a large swath of players who do not (for a variety of reasons) refluff things. For example, the lack of a "witch" in D&D means most people don't believe a witch character is playable in D&D despite Tasha being RIGHT THERE! There is no mechanical support of the concept (be it class, subclass, feat, or background) and therefore, a person who might have wanted to play a witch if the option is presented won't because the option isn't presented, and the player can't or won't "make one". That isn't an excuse to make a class (or other mechanic) for every concept under the sun, but it does show that a concept that isn't represented in the rules somewhere is a concept that doesn't exist in the game for lots of players. We should be careful when assuming a player will look at a fighter class and say "hmmmm... how and I make this into a barbarian?" Because for many, it will never cross their mind to do, it, they won't know how to do it, or the DM won't allow them the leeway needed to do it.</blockquote>

Verification