NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6193151" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm still not sold on the need for class groups (just like I'm not sold on the need for creature types). At some point, the distinction becomes academic. If there's a "cloistered priest" variant that's less durable than a priest but still a priest because they use divine magic, or an "arcane trickster" variant that uses spells to replace skills, or even the Bard (who may be a mage, or may be a warrior, or may be a priest if it has druid spells...) or the Monk (who may be a priest with passive abilities instead of active abilities, or a warrior with unarmed fighting, or a rogue good at jumping/spying/climbing....).....I don't think feats or magic items need to give much reference to the underlying "group." Personally, I don't see why a Staff of Power needs to have much of a requirement at all, but you can also code in things like "Requires Staff proficiency" or "Requires Spell proficiency" or whatever, if you'd like. Especially if these items are optional and additive, the only requirements are flavor-based requirements, not much of a balance concern at all. "Oh no, the Fighter can use a Staff of Power, that's the exact same power increase as the Wizard using it!!!" And feats fall into a similar bucket: there is a such thing as a "general feat," and I don't see much value in siloing feats away where certain characters are just prohibited from accessing them.And the framework for casting styles and ability to expand the game? Just disentangle class abilities (ie, a spell list) from the core mechanic of the class (ie, slot-based spellcasting), and allow people to mix and match. It's not so incredibly difficult. So I'm not that convinced that Mike's list of three things is really all that difficult to gain through other methods. And "class groups" seem like kind of an unnecessary distinction, still.I'm with the consensus that "Trickster" is not a great name. "Rogue" fits better, Expert if you're not willing to do the daring thing and change the rogue class to not be so broad and meaningless. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Yeah, it's a positive move, but they've yet to sell me on the need for this distinction.</blockquote>

Verification