Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6125643" data-attributes="member: 14506">Why can't specialties and sub-classes occupy the same design space?I mean really, both offer little packets of abilities, call them feats or class features. Write up specialties with enough interesting fluff and you basically have sub-classes. In fact they have stated that PrCs/Paragon paths are doing this anyway. Why not do it like that anyway for the specialties.I like the idea of a fighter selecting a deity or a cleric selecting an oath or even a ranger selecting a circle. Why not? If a sub-class is just a specialty these kinds of things could happen and it would be very cool.The fighter with 2 specialties and the rogue with 2 backgrounds! I thought this was simple and a very attractive way of handling the two classes. Sub-classes have apparently reared up because of the optional feat issue. But honestly why? Because Fighters and Rogues would look pretty plain without using backgrounds and specialties. In a game without specialties and backgrounds, why not say a fighter gets one anyway and a rogue gets a background anyway. This gels with some peoples argument that they want the fighter to have unique abilities and it could be true for the rogue with backgrounds.</blockquote>