Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dalamar" data-source="post: 6179093" data-attributes="member: 358">Except that that's not what Mearls said in the latest L&L. I'll quote, and bold the parts that I'm focusing on.Mearls is saying the exact opposite. He's saying that not all Mage classes will share the default casting mechanic, that some sub classes will directly hook into variant casting mechanics. And if all subclasses don't have to necessarily share the same spell list, the limited lists either can't be centered around some themes (such as curses) without having a specific spell list in which case it would never benefit from further spells added to the general mage list, just as if it were a separate class, or the divisions will have to be very broad (this class can't cast divination spells). If I recall correctly, the last time he has talked about variant spellcasting mechanics being independent of the spellcasting classes in the game has been several playtest packages ago. Really, I think that most of the time when people on here are against the idea of the class-subclass structure, it comes from the fact that not each class sounds like it will carry even remotely the same kind of weight relative to its subclass. And the main culprit with this is the mage. For most other classes, the subclass is more of a specialization, but for the mage it really can be a subclass with very little in common between the subclasses.</blockquote>