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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6178985" data-attributes="member: 95493">This will be fun to dispute. Okay....A. Part of the problem is how you define "wizardly things". Also, why  should the "shugenja" do "wizardly things" in the first place?B. How  does it make things "feel similar"? Consider 3e's run, you had all the  classes in the splatbooks, say Complete Arcane, and they all followed  the 3e math for casters. But those splatbook casters did not receive the  same amount of attention nor were they very good. Having "similar feel"  in math for the system didn't help me get into psionics even if the  spells/powers were very similar in power.C. You don't need a class/subclass system to achieve your second  paragraph. Name all casters "casters". Name all who use weapons or skill  [monkeys] such. How does a class/subclass system help here?D. HOW?Wouldn't it be easier to  describe them in terms of their ability? Dragonfire adepts (from  experience) are going to be relatively terrible wizards. They are not  scholarly. They don't brew potions very well. They are much closer to  warlocks and while warlocks have some wizardy (technically sorcerous)  ability they are not the same basic archetype. Archivist fits much  better as a wizard type, but from play experience I would guess their  supertype would be priest? Why are you defining the characteristics  (NOTE: "Character") of the class by the mechanics of the class in a  roleplaying game? If the dragonfire adept happened to channel white  magic/divine magic as opposed to dark/arcane, how would you define it  then? That could be an easy change as far as "subclasses" goes. A VERY  easy one that might have huge impact, or very little. A psion is a very  different creature in terms of power structure, power manifestation,  background/description and general mood of the character; when defined  along with a wizard, or sorcerer, or even dragonfire adept.As (I  think KM) said: What makes subclasses BETTER at doing this as opposed  to just different at doing it? If you are going to end up with the same  giant lists of subclasses/classes why is it better in this format?Except I play pathfinder. Do you know what happens when you play a ninja/rogue?E.  You lose something, you lose basic powers that (if you were a straight  rogue) you would have otherwise kept. That happens with all the  pathfinder substitutions. If an option were to be the other way around,  the option being better than the default, then no one would take the  default. So either make the subclass weaker or stronger, and invalidate  whichever option is weaker. There may be some who will pick the weaker  version for RP, but they will immediately recognize that. They would  have also done it if it was its own class.F. It hurts you to  multiclass. It isn't a big thing by itself, but often times if you want  to multiclass into several different classes (not talking between rogue  and ninja) you lose something or are set further back than if they were  different classes.G. You can't level dip to pick up normal rogue  abilities. It is simple. If the ninja loses.. let's say evasion or  trapfinding that the rogue gets at low levels then you might want to dip  and pick those abilities up. You can't when they're subclasses because  you can't dip into the class you are already in.H. It is another  choice point that you have to make. Meaning that if you are playing a  ninja you are going to be as similar to ninjas as every other ninja. If  you could normally be a rogue (bland, regular), rogue-thug, rogue-ninja;  and you choose rogue-ninja, so does every other rogue-ninja. You are  then the same as ever other rogue-ninja because everyone had to make  that choice point. You lose something there, you can't be a ninja-thug,  or whatever the ninja variants are. That is a choicepoint you lose with a  subclass you don't lose with a CLASS.Actually it is the same problem. Good  splatbooks in this way will always try to support characters or provide  backward compabability. Bad systems/splatbooks won't. The problem with  the binder wasn't that it wasn't a wizard subclass, it was that it  sucked and that it never got any further support. Making it part of the  mage superclass will only drive the people who play a binder crazy, as  it never gets further support down the line either way.While  this is nice and what should  hopefully happen it isn't realistic. Just  like already shown, first DMG has pearl of power/boccobs blessed book.  Those items are exclusionary to sorcerers. I know you said almost but  that is what we're talking about here. Wizard/Sorcerer were about as  close as we can hope to get in terms of power aligning with spells and  even then items can only be made for one or the other. I guess I just  want more idea what you are expecting to happen or how they stop this  kind of thing from happening outside of saying "subclasses" will fix the  problem.I've seen  entire systems shorter than the classes for 4e. Being short has little  to do with the subclasses. If anything putting subclasses under the base  class section will increase the length. I think you are over  attributing one aspect of 5e with one part of it. 5e is shorter..  because of subclasses? Are subclasses also responsible for the way  spells are worded?I don't know why I'm injecting myself into this conversation. But here goes.I  went and looked at those threads. His arguments were similar. But they  were hardly the same. They addressed the topic of the conversation. I  guess part of me wants to know, in that case, why YOU look restating  your position every time. You are frequently the first response after FI  and say very nearly the same thing ever time. Yes we know Mage is an  organizational thing. (Except it may not be, we don't really know what  it will look like yet.) So.. "What's driving you to make the same point over and over again? You know,  there's no vote being counted here with each new thread."Have you looked at the XP he (yes, I'm assuming FI is a he, even if he isn't) has? They're pretty universally "hey good job/+1 for insight" kind of stuff. No one saying "ignore now". Not one.Agreed. I think the problem here is that ANY  subclass could be under-supported. It might be under supported because  the overclass might focus on one branch or another. If Sorcerers become  the most exciting class at release then it is quite possible wizard, or  psion or any other subclass might get ignored to the detriment of that  subclass. There are certainly more suppliments for Barbarian or Paladin  in 3e splatbooks than for Fighter or Ranger that I ever saw. That is the  problem when all four classes become a single class. Then add in that  the game designers may look at the stats for "warrior" created stuff and  say "yep, there's already a lot out there, job's done" so that fighter,  or whatever, gets ignored because the superclass isn't. I think that was @KaiiLurker 's point.</blockquote>

Verification