NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 6178994" data-attributes="member: 17077">How does this structure prevent unfamiliar ideas? A subclass can be just as new and unfamiliar as a regular class.And what is wrong with "unfamiliar" ideas? If you don't like a new class, nothing forces you to use it.I also want to point out that I'm fine with the whole subclass thing for the most part. I think it's fine to make assassins and shadowdancers subclasses of rogue, etc. The only thing I'm strongly against is putting every type of non-divine magic user under one class - the mage. It's just too much. All of the other classes are pretty consistent in the amount of options and concepts they cover (except for the barbarian, which IMO should be a fighter subclass). But then you have the mage, which includes every type of wizard, sorcerer, warlock, witch, artificer and even psionics all under one class, potentially making that one class as large as all of the other classes combined. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the classes in this design scheme, at all. It's like you have a lineup of meerkats, and then throw in a rhinocerous. The "mage" is just too broad a concept, and needs to be broken down. I can live with the sorcerer being together with the wizard, as they traditionally used the exact same spells anyway. But the warlock and psion would work far better as their own classes.When a subclass can have a totally different casting method than its parent class, there's not really much familiarity there. You still have to learn about the new subclass's methods, spells, etc. Saying its a class or a subclass makes no difference as far as that goes. It's merely a matter of organization. I can put the warlock in the same filing cabinet as the wizard, or a different one. But it's still a warlock.The only way that what you're saying would be right is if every mage subclass were forced to use similar casting mechanics and spells to the regular wizard. But I would absolutely hate that because it would take away everything that made warlocks and psions special, IMO.I disagree. There's absolutely nothing preventing a subclass from being overpowered if the abilities it gets are more powerful than what other subclasses get.Again, I disagree. If something is introduced in a later book, it makes no difference whether or not its a class or subclass as far as support goes. In either case, it may never be mentioned in a future supplement ever again.What you're saying about feats and the like is also not necessarily true. A feat designed for a vancian wizard may simply not work for an at-will warlock or a spell point psion. Metamagic type feats that require spell slots are a good example of this.</blockquote>

Verification