Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 9762025" data-attributes="member: 20564">I'd like to try to change your mind on this one.  I think it's potentially more negative than positive.The biggest is that it assumes that the base classes are all the same power so that base class+subclass=the same(ish).  And I know what you're thinking, that that doesn't seem too much of an ask.  But take a look at 2014 races.  When they tried to have more powerful races there was no design space left over.  That's why we had things like medium-sized pony-people instead of actual centaurs, and the huge squawk (pun intended, dangit) over always-flying races.So you end up with the full caster being the bare minimum base class, and if the class has even more, like wildshape, that pushes the base class budget up even higher.At this point we have all base classes, before adding subclasses, being very powerful -- full caster plus more level.  Then we need to add subclasses.If we keep subclass power low, they're mostly an afterthought compared to the class.  It's not worth having this big division, and all future subclasses will be limited to this level of power, leading to issues just like we had with 2014 races when trying to introduce others.If on the other hand we make subclass power high enough to matter, then we're adding one enough power that's like an extra half a full caster.  (Not a half caster, half someone with 9th level slots because that's the power level of the classes).  At this point we've got wild amounts of power creep.And what's the benefit of this?  You mention universal subclasses, but your first priority of balance kills that because there is no way to design that every subclass will synergize with every base class in the same amount.  Universal subclasses are a non-starter with your first priority in place.So what does it really buy us?  And is that worth the cost of design shackles of forcing all base classes to have the same power budget, which is full caster+?As we saw with ten years of expansions with the 2014 races, there's a real cost to trying to make everything the same.  Allowing that the (base class+subclass) total all have the same power budget (gained at the same rate) gives you a lot more flexibility to do things a class that has a heavy amount of power into a pet, a wild shape, or something else based on subclass with a weaker base class, and an powerful base class with lighter subclasses.Basically, it unduly limits our design space in ways that we have experienced as real and not dismissable for a spreadsheet-balancing bonus that brings little to the table for actual character creation and advancement during a campaign.  Neither the player nor the DM will notice if Alice's character's power is 80% base class and 20% subclass and Bob's character's power, equal to Alice's in actual play and growing at the same rate, is 65% base class and 35% subclass.EDIT: This assume subclasses still exist. Doing this all to subclasses so "some future edition or 3pp or my houserules might break them into feats" doesn't bring anything to the table for people playing by the rules now and therefore has zero weight. However actually breaking them up to feats is a whole different thing and this is not an argument against that.  It has challenges but it's a nifty idea.Eh, since I'm commenting, I've long thought they've underused Concentration by only using it (almost?) exclusively for spells.  I could see Fighter or Monk stances, temporary Paladin auras, maybe a ranger wild-shape subclass, and all sorts of things that classes that aren't full combat casters could use it for.So I think this an underused design space to be utilized, not one to be avoided.  Though I agree with you about Hunter's Mark and would add the Paladin smites to the list.</blockquote>

Verification