Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 8245648" data-attributes="member: 6788934">If I'm understanding you correctly, I kind of agree with this. To be honest I think this is something that could have been handled much better in 5e. They weren't bold enough in committing to cleaning up the base class options by reducing the # and backing out features to give more design space to subclasses, and they simultaneously want to control the number of classes and pigeonhole all new concepts as subclasses into existing classes even when it's a significant thematic stretch to do so (i.e. psion or shaman.) So we're left underexploring a lot of those class concepts and getting a lot of unclean bloat in subclass options that don't leave a ton of customization room and can't be MC'd effectively.I arguably think that 3e's prestige classes worked better as a concept, but that they needed to do the same approach and pare back or simplify what was offered through base classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Einlanzer0, post: 8245648, member: 6788934"] If I'm understanding you correctly, I kind of agree with this. To be honest I think this is something that could have been handled much better in 5e. They weren't bold enough in committing to cleaning up the base class options by reducing the # and backing out features to give more design space to subclasses, and they simultaneously want to control the number of classes and pigeonhole all new concepts as subclasses into existing classes even when it's a significant thematic stretch to do so (i.e. psion or shaman.) So we're left underexploring a lot of those class concepts and getting a lot of unclean bloat in subclass options that don't leave a ton of customization room and can't be MC'd effectively. I arguably think that 3e's prestige classes worked better as a concept, but that they needed to do the same approach and pare back or simplify what was offered through base classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification