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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 9895141" data-attributes="member: 891">Yes.But locking to that rather than making it an option in a more fluid design proves the point I and at least one other person in here made: the classes are too specific in their theme.Druid is "only the D&D Druid" even more than the D&D druid is. Wildshape goes from " a cool party trick" to the central focus, that cannot be opted out of, and most powerful ability in the game. And then there is just not much else there to build your way around it if you want a Druid that is more like a druid rather than a druid...It's the example I focus on because of how overpowered that ability is, but this is a pattern throughout the game:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Things that are class abilities would be better as subclasses to keep options open.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Things that are in subclasses feel like they would make better class abilities because they don't impact 'narrative choice'.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Domain abilities are too thin - just not enough choices. So you can't customize. This is EXPECTED in a new game. But when asked about it they stated they do not intend to add more abilities to the domains at each level, but to instead add more domains. And they don't want to add more subclasses (*), but instead more classes. So what we see is what we get for the current classes - some of which should therefore not have been presented under generic labels like 'druid', 'rogue', 'warrior', etc.</li> </ul>* Unless it's a Mercer made class, then it gets 3. And it was when people asked after Blood Hunter came out with 3 subclasses that we found out about these intentions. Hopefully they will change their mind on this.</blockquote>

Verification