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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord_Blacksteel" data-source="post: 6178526" data-attributes="member: 53082">Yep, and this is a little annoying, because although I've done it at times over the years it's never been the default approach to D&D. It feels as though the old zero-level start is being forced into the game at level 1 and level 2 whether you like it or not. Was there some great outcry in the feedback they've received to cover that niche?This gets into the whole "what should be a class" debate and they are stuck between "efficiency" and "D&D Tradition". Paladin is a class because it's been a class for a long time. Warlock is a subclass because it has a lot less tradition behind it. What I would rather see, if they insist on doing it this way, is the classic four as classes - Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief and then the in-between roles as classes - Paladin between Fighter and Cleric, etc. The use subclasses to flavor to taste: Wizard/Sorcerer, Knight/Gladiator, etc. The problem is that the traditional powers of certain classes don't really slot neatly into those roles. A non-spellcasting ranger could slot in between Fighter and Thief but rangers have always had spells, but they aren't fighter mages either. Classes like Druids don't fit in anywhere neatly either. So if you can't come up with some balanced mechanical basis for it you're left with something background related. As someone else mentioned above I think 4E's power source approach makes some sense, but they don't seem to be particularly interested in using a lot of 4E concepts in next, at least not by name. So we're back to why not just make each class its own class? What problem do subclasses solve that separate base classes do not?  And this is the other problem you get from the current approach. If you label Mage as "Arcane caster" then that strengthens and limits the concept at the same time. Surely Psion needs to be it's own class, and probably one that comes later, not on Day 1 in Book 1.If you look at Fighter as "Martial Tank" and Paladin as "Divine Tank" then it makes some sense. Under that concept maybe subclass is a further flavoring element - Gladiator is tricky/maneuver based or "offensive" subclass, while knight is mount based or "defensive" subclass.Maybe Druid becomes "Divine Striker" and Ranger becomes "Martial Striker". Subclasses could define some mechanics and emphasize ranged over melee combat, and different types of non-combat abilities.I'm just thinking out loud here. Some kind of framework from WOTC would be nice though.</blockquote>

Verification