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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 6177125" data-attributes="member: 54710">This seems like one of those situations where the designers have discovered a useful tool but are applying it too broadly.  (i.e. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...")Using sub-classes to provide different versions of the same class that have different complexity is a good idea, and the fighter is a fine example.  Yes, many characters will want to separate story and mechanics for some of the subclasses (e.g. a knight that uses gladiator mechanics), but that's the sort of table customization that has always been a part of the game.  The underlying idea of providing different flavors of fighter is strong.Likewise, allowing a given class to use multiple spellcasting mechanics is also reasonable.  Yes, some games have had significant story differences between Sorcerers and Wizards, but they ultimately use the same type of magic.  Sure, specializations (effectively sub-subclasses) for sorcerers could be different than specializations for wizards, but these two classes are lot more similar than they are different.  If sorcerers are wizards are both mage sub-classes, that doesn't seem too strange.Where this goes too far is in bringing warlocks and psions into the mage bailiwick.  Other than being primarily casters, these classes have little in common with wizards or sorcerers.  The story connections are weak and, I strongly suspect, the mechanics are almost completely different.  If the only thing these classes have in common with mages is a hit die and the ability to use certain magic items, then what is the value in making them subclasses of the same parent class?  If there's a good answer to that question, this L&L doesn't provide it.-KS</blockquote>

Verification