Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7193902" data-attributes="member: 92511">Right?Clerics (and most every other class) are presented with subclass options that offer very specific flavor (through their mechanics) and establish a fairly good idea of the cleric of a particular domain's place in the world. I very much enjoyed the divine spell &quot;Spheres&quot; of 2e and very much enjoy the domain framework, it is, itself an aberration from the development of other class' subclass options. That is, it lends a direction and a &quot;feel&quot; for how a cleric of said domain (and their powers) would interact with the world...but it really doesn't say anything about the cleric.I would have preferred a breakdown of archetype, of the kind/direction of cleric, as I presented here (and have elsewhere in other class musings threads) to the mechanic/power specificity.&nbsp; Like the wizard traditions do. These are your special school powers and your special features...but you are still, in the world, a &quot;Necromancer&quot; or an &quot;Illusionist.&quot; So you're getting the specific powers AND the flavor AND the place in the world all balled up in your subclass mechanics.AND/OR, as @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=1465" target="_blank">Li Shenron</a> astutely points out (and I really like the idea!), it would have been terribly simple (and made more sense and not had the warlock be &quot;the only kid in the class with...&quot;) to build the domain differentiation in as a secondary player choice point.Fighters got, &quot;Here's your mechanics [&quot;straightforawrd/simple&quot; or &quot;+maneuvers&quot; or &quot;+magic&quot;]...do whatever you want with 'em.&quot;Now, I applaud the fighter its broad open completely unconstrained framework as far as &quot;flavor&quot; or archetype is concerned. You can make pretty much any fighter and any fighter subclass into whatever kind of warrior guy you want. That is, unquestionably, by design.But, at the same time, when every other class' subclass options are developed with at least some flavor and specificity as to what place they hold in the game setting/fiction: &quot;I'm a Hunter.&quot; &quot;I'm a Berserker.&quot; &quot;I'm a Druid of the [this] Land&quot; or &quot;Bard seeking/interested in Lore&quot;, it is a noticeable difference in feel/flavor and as much a &quot;limitation&quot; as a &quot;freedom&quot; of the class...imho, of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7193902, member: 92511"] Right? Clerics (and most every other class) are presented with subclass options that offer very specific flavor (through their mechanics) and establish a fairly good idea of the cleric of a particular domain's place in the world. I very much enjoyed the divine spell "Spheres" of 2e and very much enjoy the domain framework, it is, itself an aberration from the development of other class' subclass options. That is, it lends a direction and a "feel" for how a cleric of said domain (and their powers) would interact with the world...but it really doesn't say anything about the [I]cleric.[/I] I would have preferred a breakdown of archetype, of the [I]kind[/I]/direction of cleric, as I presented here (and have elsewhere in other class musings threads) to the mechanic/power specificity. Like the wizard traditions do. These are your special school powers and your special features...but you are still, in the world, a "Necromancer" or an "Illusionist." So you're getting the specific powers AND the flavor AND the place in the world all balled up in your subclass mechanics. AND/OR, as @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=1465"]Li Shenron[/URL][/U][/B][/I] astutely points out (and I really like the idea!), it would have been terribly simple (and made more sense and not had the warlock be "the only kid in the class with...") to build the domain differentiation in as a secondary player choice point. Fighters got, "Here's your mechanics ["straightforawrd/simple" or "+maneuvers" or "+magic"]...do whatever you want with 'em." Now, I applaud the fighter its broad open completely unconstrained framework as far as "flavor" or archetype is concerned. You can make pretty much any fighter and any fighter subclass into whatever kind of warrior guy you want. That is, unquestionably, by design. But, at the same time, when every other class' subclass options are developed with at least some flavor and specificity as to what place they hold in the game setting/fiction: "I'm a Hunter." "I'm a Berserker." "I'm a Druid of the [this] Land" or "Bard seeking/interested in Lore", it is a noticeable difference in feel/flavor and as much a "limitation" as a "freedom" of the class...imho, of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification