Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 8008141" data-attributes="member: 23716">The OP makes a lot of good points, though I disagree on the Moon Druid fix specifically, much like Ruin Explorer above.&nbsp; I think the problem was trying to push the &quot;shape changer&quot; theme too hard on the Druid chassis; that's what needed to be fixed.&nbsp; I like the idea of sub-classes &quot;overwriting&quot; base class features, but care must be given to not create combination monstrosities that turn the game into a 3.x clone; when such things got way out of hand.One example that I immediately thought of but was overlooked in the OP is the Warlock.&nbsp; It tried to have psudo-sub-classes by offering patrons at first level and pact boons at third level; thereby giving more combinations of options.&nbsp; Others may disagree, but I feel they missed the mark here and should have just kept it with the patron choice, as the blade'lock (and it's somewhat overpowered &quot;fix&quot; in the hexblade) demonstrates.Someone above mentioned offering more in class choices within a class, like invocations, metamagics, and maneuvers, and I agree that this is the way to go (though still froaught with design perils).&nbsp; Feats have been attempted the last three editions, and they've either been a power creep bananza or sytem mastery puzzle for the game.&nbsp; 5e's saving grace here was to avoid churning out a never ending flood of feats to add to the creep or puzzle. Finally, the OP (or someone) mentioned the &quot;sameness&quot; that they are feeling with characters, having played 5e for, what, going on six years now?&nbsp; I would submit that part of the problem with this is that, as others have mentioned in the past, a large number of sub-classes in the game are spellcasters in one way or another, and there are only so many spells to go around, particularly as levels rise.&nbsp; A high level Bard, despite class features, begins to look and feel quite a bit like a high level Wizard or Sorcerer.&nbsp; Sure, they have a slightly different spell list, but not, imo, a unique enough one.&nbsp; Patial casters like the EK and the AT suffer the most from this, as they must pilliage from the wizard spell list with no spells unique to them (arguably some of the newer cantrips like GFB are for them).&nbsp; The Paladin and Ranger have it somewhat better, as they have their own spell list with unique spells, not just raiding the cleric and durid spell lists.&nbsp; This is where the 4e classes like the Swordmage had it better, as everything was designed for them in particular, with better synergy and flavor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gadget, post: 8008141, member: 23716"] The OP makes a lot of good points, though I disagree on the Moon Druid fix specifically, much like Ruin Explorer above. I think the problem was trying to push the "shape changer" theme too hard on the Druid chassis; that's what needed to be fixed. I like the idea of sub-classes "overwriting" base class features, but care must be given to not create combination monstrosities that turn the game into a 3.x clone; when such things got way out of hand. One example that I immediately thought of but was overlooked in the OP is the Warlock. It tried to have psudo-sub-classes by offering patrons at first level and pact boons at third level; thereby giving more combinations of options. Others may disagree, but I feel they missed the mark here and should have just kept it with the patron choice, as the blade'lock (and it's somewhat overpowered "fix" in the hexblade) demonstrates. Someone above mentioned offering more in class choices within a class, like invocations, metamagics, and maneuvers, and I agree that this is the way to go (though still froaught with design perils). Feats have been attempted the last three editions, and they've either been a power creep bananza or sytem mastery puzzle for the game. 5e's saving grace here was to avoid churning out a never ending flood of feats to add to the creep or puzzle. Finally, the OP (or someone) mentioned the "sameness" that they are feeling with characters, having played 5e for, what, going on six years now? I would submit that part of the problem with this is that, as others have mentioned in the past, a large number of sub-classes in the game are spellcasters in one way or another, and there are only so many spells to go around, particularly as levels rise. A high level Bard, despite class features, begins to look and feel quite a bit like a high level Wizard or Sorcerer. Sure, they have a slightly different spell list, but not, imo, a unique enough one. Patial casters like the EK and the AT suffer the most from this, as they must pilliage from the wizard spell list with no spells unique to them (arguably some of the newer cantrips like GFB are for them). The Paladin and Ranger have it somewhat better, as they have their own spell list with unique spells, not just raiding the cleric and durid spell lists. This is where the 4e classes like the Swordmage had it better, as everything was designed for them in particular, with better synergy and flavor. [/QUOTE]

Verification