Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6040073" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>I think it's a good principle, but then I can see enough breadth in the <strong>Paladin </strong>(based on different virtues, as you also suggest) and <strong>Ranger </strong>(based on different terrains) but not enough in the <strong>Assassin </strong>(enough to have it as a Rogue scheme), the <strong>Barbarian </strong>(I would like it best as a Human subrace) and the <strong>Warlord </strong>(should be at most a specialty available to high-Cha PC of every class).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes and no, why not having both? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> I don't necessarily like a clear distinction into "subclasses", I think Fighter's styles are the best case because they're fluid, you can mix them.</p><p></p><p>I think there is room for both because Specialties can be used for concepts that should better be allowed to all classes, while "subclasses" (but I think the term sucks... best for each class to have its own name and implementation, like currently!) can be used for in-class differentiation.</p><p></p><p>Of course this might be a bit fuzzy... but let's take a couple of example from our current classes:</p><p></p><p>a) Fighter's Fighting Styles: the "concepts" of a duelist, sharpshooter, protector etc. are not to be restricted to a fighter. But here we have to understand that having these as Fighter's own "schtik" does not, in fact, prevent any other character to be a duelist etc. It just prevents other classes to get <em>these specific mechanical benefits</em>. You may call it "niche protection" or "class protection" but it is a good thing, because it makes single-class Fighters an attractive option. THEN there can be ALSO some duelist feats, sharpshooter feats etc. for other characters, but it's good that the Fighter gets additional mechanical benefits, which in fact use a Fighter's unique mechanics (which really should be unique, not spread over to other classes, or it spoils everything!).</p><p></p><p>b) Cleric's Domains/Deities OR Wizard's Traditions: these work directly on these classes' spellcasting mechanics (plus some general stuff like proficiencies, resistances, spare bonuses...). So the spellcasting benefits wouldn't even apply to other classes, and the other benefits are so generic that they are useful but not necessary to represent the concept (thus they don't restrict the concept to this class only).</p><p></p><p>Specialties instead can be very useful when they give totally additional features that are not bound to a single class' specific mechanic (see especially the Themes in older packets such as the Necromancer specialty, the Arcane Dabbler etc.) or they are too important/defining for a concept that we really want available to all, such as archery feats or leadership feats (hence my view on Warlord as a Specialty).</p><p></p><p>So the CONCLUSION is that there can be both archery feats AND archery Fighter-only maneuvers, and this is the best we can get. If we only have feats (for every concept, not just archery), then we quickly lose the chance to make each class unique and attractive on its own as a single-class. If we only have maneuvers (or class-specific features) we lose the chance for some concepts to be available to others.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6040073, member: 1465"] I think it's a good principle, but then I can see enough breadth in the [B]Paladin [/B](based on different virtues, as you also suggest) and [B]Ranger [/B](based on different terrains) but not enough in the [B]Assassin [/B](enough to have it as a Rogue scheme), the [B]Barbarian [/B](I would like it best as a Human subrace) and the [B]Warlord [/B](should be at most a specialty available to high-Cha PC of every class). Yes and no, why not having both? ;) I don't necessarily like a clear distinction into "subclasses", I think Fighter's styles are the best case because they're fluid, you can mix them. I think there is room for both because Specialties can be used for concepts that should better be allowed to all classes, while "subclasses" (but I think the term sucks... best for each class to have its own name and implementation, like currently!) can be used for in-class differentiation. Of course this might be a bit fuzzy... but let's take a couple of example from our current classes: a) Fighter's Fighting Styles: the "concepts" of a duelist, sharpshooter, protector etc. are not to be restricted to a fighter. But here we have to understand that having these as Fighter's own "schtik" does not, in fact, prevent any other character to be a duelist etc. It just prevents other classes to get [I]these specific mechanical benefits[/I]. You may call it "niche protection" or "class protection" but it is a good thing, because it makes single-class Fighters an attractive option. THEN there can be ALSO some duelist feats, sharpshooter feats etc. for other characters, but it's good that the Fighter gets additional mechanical benefits, which in fact use a Fighter's unique mechanics (which really should be unique, not spread over to other classes, or it spoils everything!). b) Cleric's Domains/Deities OR Wizard's Traditions: these work directly on these classes' spellcasting mechanics (plus some general stuff like proficiencies, resistances, spare bonuses...). So the spellcasting benefits wouldn't even apply to other classes, and the other benefits are so generic that they are useful but not necessary to represent the concept (thus they don't restrict the concept to this class only). Specialties instead can be very useful when they give totally additional features that are not bound to a single class' specific mechanic (see especially the Themes in older packets such as the Necromancer specialty, the Arcane Dabbler etc.) or they are too important/defining for a concept that we really want available to all, such as archery feats or leadership feats (hence my view on Warlord as a Specialty). So the CONCLUSION is that there can be both archery feats AND archery Fighter-only maneuvers, and this is the best we can get. If we only have feats (for every concept, not just archery), then we quickly lose the chance to make each class unique and attractive on its own as a single-class. If we only have maneuvers (or class-specific features) we lose the chance for some concepts to be available to others. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses
Top