Jester David
Hero
"False" might be too strong. I agree than in some cases, subtracting is easier. It is much easier to have a rule and be able to ignore it than lack a rule. That's very true (and the basis of the Basic game).I think this claim is obviously false.
No doubt there are some different instances where it is easier to add than to subtract. But that is not at all a general truth.
But some content is going to be easier to subtract and some content is going to be easier to add.
Anything that could be an optional modules likely should be an optional module.
Right. Except that if included as a module presumably there will be advice and designer notes on the module that make it easier to add.Subtracting dragons from my game isn't going to have any unintended consequences that I can see. In 4e, the consequences of subtracting the cleric from my game are clearly spelled out - if the players want a leader they'll have to build a warlord, bard, shaman or ardent. And in AD&D, nothing at all is going to happen if I subtract half the polearms on the weapon list. (Even subtracting the longsword probably won't have any non-obvious consequence.)
I'm sure there are some cases where subtraction can have unforeseen consequences, but I don't think there is any reason to think that it generally will, or that those consequneces will be any more severe than the unforeseen consequences of adding things (look at all the warnings in classic D&D, for instance, about adding new spells or new items - the designers clearly thought that adding that sort of stuff could be potentially gamebreaking).
Hence my reluctance to advocate its base inclusion in 5e when it works just as well as an option.The feats are neither here-nor-there - 4e has so many feats that the game would survive the excision of a dozen or so of them. But you are correct that trying to remove inspirational/martial healing from 4e would be a near-hopeless task.
It won't be as embedded with as many related options, but there's no reason it cannot work smoothly. There just needs to be advice for DMs on handling parties with greater access to healing and who heal faster. With 5e, it's also a little easier to just add higher level opponents, knowing the PCs have a greater ability to heal the increased damage while still being able to hit.The idea that you can just add inspirational healing to a game designed without it and have it all work smoothly strikes me as pretty optimistic. As you yourself have pointed out, making it work in 4e involves embedding it into the systems from the ground up.
It's also similar to the inquisitor from Pathfinder.I don't really see the reasoning whereby mystical assassin is too narrow to be a class, but armour-wearing priest of the Knights Templar variety - ie the traditional D&D cleric - is not. The divine assassin picks up a good chunk of the monk archetype (which Monte Cook tackled in AU with the Oathsworn), plus the religious zealot idea as well, which I think has a reasonable degree of popular currency.
And the unique defining mechanic for the classic D&D cleric is healing and turning undead. I'm not seeing how that's radically broad compared to the avenger's movement and Oath of Enmity.
The avenger works in 4e, a game with limited multiclassing where you cannot get a little chocolate in your peanut butter and with hard roles. But 5e sounds like it will have 3e style multiclassing that makes it a little unnecessary You could have a DPR paladin, a pally rogue, a cleric rogue, a cleric ranger, a fighter with the acolyte background, and the like.
"Divine assassin" is a neat character concept but less of a class concept. What does an avenger with the guardian build look like? Or with the healer build?