Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6193060" data-attributes="member: 23484">This feels to me like a really elaborate solution to the mage/sorcerer/warlock problem, one that spills out way beyond the classes it is intending to fix. I wasn't worried about not being able to play a multiclass Mage/Sorcerer, but I know some on these boards were. For them, this answer -- adding a layer of administration above &quot;classes&quot; but which serves exactly the same purpose as &quot;classes&quot; for all classes except for the arcane casters -- may be exactly the answer they are looking for. I hope so, because at a first glance (and I know that's all this is) it feels like a needless complication for all other characters.The class groups themselves are pretty lame: 4e had a better meta-class classification, where it served a conceptual purpose in party-building. Both of the example fixes are red herrings: there is nothing about the class groups that is needed to bring these fixes in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 6193060, member: 23484"] This feels to me like a really elaborate solution to the mage/sorcerer/warlock problem, one that spills out way beyond the classes it is intending to fix. I wasn't worried about not being able to play a multiclass Mage/Sorcerer, but I know some on these boards were. For them, this answer -- adding a layer of administration above "classes" but which serves exactly the same purpose as "classes" for all classes except for the arcane casters -- may be exactly the answer they are looking for. I hope so, because at a first glance (and I know that's all this is) it feels like a needless complication for all other characters. The class groups themselves are pretty lame: 4e had a better meta-class classification, where it served a conceptual purpose in party-building. Both of the example fixes are red herrings: there is nothing about the class groups that is needed to bring these fixes in. [/QUOTE]

Verification