Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8419300" data-attributes="member: 7006">To add onto your point about being covered under divine... there are gods of magic.&nbsp; So arcane magic shouldn't be its own thing either if primal and psionic shouldn't be (per your supposition.)Now that being said... I do happen to agree with you that I think ALL magic classes would be better served if there was much more separation in what they could do.&nbsp; If every class had its own unique spell list (and this includes all the subclasses like each Domain, School, Land Circle, Patron, College, Origin) then you could really gives classes differentiation.&nbsp; Heck, I'll go to my grave insisting that if you are going to bother having a Sorcerer at your table, you do that player a disservice if you DON'T make a custom spell list for them to really drive their Origin home.&nbsp; Otherwise... the player just ends up taking the same half-dozen power spells (since they don't get to swap them out), most of which do not thematically apply to whatever their Origin probably was.&nbsp; You get Black Dragon Sorcerers taking Fireball because it's the &quot;best&quot; 3rd level spell to take.*****[This is now me expanding further on the topic, but not in relation to Faolyn's comment.]And this is why I think the top tier of Parent class isn't useful, because there's nothing descriptive of character about it.&nbsp; In 5E we could say that Bards, Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards all have the same Parent class, because they all use the exact same spell slot table-- same number of spell levels, same character levels when they get new spells, same character levels when they get new spell levels.&nbsp; They are all in the same &quot;Full Spellcaster&quot; Parent class based on that one mechanic.But does that &quot;Full Spellcaster&quot; actually mean anything to the characters themselves?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; It's purely a mechanical representation and it's purely there for balancing purposes (to make sure all five of the classes are on equal footing), and ease-of-use.&nbsp; But I don't think anyone would claim that it in any way defines what each Child class is, who each character within that Child class is, what is important to them, and how and why they do what they do.&nbsp; There's no story to the Full Spellcaster mechanic.&nbsp; In story and in fiction the Full Spellcaster Parent class has no meaning.&nbsp; And thus I don't see any reason why this &quot;tier&quot; should be called out in the rules.&nbsp; And in point of fact 5E agrees with me, because the rules make no reference to alert players to the fact that there is only one &quot;Full Caster&quot; chart that these five classes use (or indeed that there are also only one &quot;Half Caster&quot; and one &quot;Third Caster&quot; chart.)&nbsp; It's just not important for players to know that.&nbsp; But the Child class (or what most of us just call the &quot;Class&quot;) is important, because that's where the story of the class resides.&nbsp; There's where we can see what the Cleric believes in.&nbsp; What matters to the Druid.&nbsp; How the Wizard manipulates magic to do and get what it wants.&nbsp; And this is why I think Class is the most important thing, and why Subclasses should only provide the additional options needed to focus the Class towards the story the Subclass is trying to get across.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8419300, member: 7006"] To add onto your point about being covered under divine... there are gods of magic. So arcane magic shouldn't be its own thing either if primal and psionic shouldn't be (per your supposition.) Now that being said... I do happen to agree with you that I think ALL magic classes would be better served if there was much more separation in what they could do. If every class had its own unique spell list (and this includes all the subclasses like each Domain, School, Land Circle, Patron, College, Origin) then you could really gives classes differentiation. Heck, I'll go to my grave insisting that if you are going to bother having a Sorcerer at your table, you do that player a disservice if you DON'T make a custom spell list for them to really drive their Origin home. Otherwise... the player just ends up taking the same half-dozen power spells (since they don't get to swap them out), most of which do not thematically apply to whatever their Origin probably was. You get Black Dragon Sorcerers taking Fireball because it's the "best" 3rd level spell to take. ***** [I][This is now me expanding further on the topic, but not in relation to Faolyn's comment.][/I] And this is why I think the top tier of Parent class isn't useful, because there's nothing descriptive of character about it. In 5E we could say that Bards, Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards all have the same Parent class, because they all use the exact same spell slot table-- same number of spell levels, same character levels when they get new spells, same character levels when they get new spell levels. They are all in the same "Full Spellcaster" Parent class based on that one mechanic. But does that "Full Spellcaster" actually mean anything to the characters themselves? No. It's purely a mechanical representation and it's purely there for balancing purposes (to make sure all five of the classes are on equal footing), and ease-of-use. But I don't think anyone would claim that it in any way defines what each Child class is, who each character within that Child class is, what is important to them, and how and why they do what they do. There's no story to the Full Spellcaster mechanic. In story and in fiction the Full Spellcaster Parent class has no meaning. And thus I don't see any reason why this "tier" should be called out in the rules. And in point of fact 5E agrees with me, because the rules make no reference to alert players to the fact that there is only one "Full Caster" chart that these five classes use (or indeed that there are also only one "Half Caster" and one "Third Caster" chart.) It's just not important for players to know that. But the Child class (or what most of us just call the "Class") is important, because that's where the story of the class resides. There's where we can see what the Cleric believes in. What matters to the Druid. How the Wizard manipulates magic to do and get what it wants. And this is why I think Class is the most important thing, and why Subclasses should only provide the additional options needed to focus the Class towards the story the Subclass is trying to get across. [/QUOTE]

Verification