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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6178022" data-attributes="member: 14506">There are a couple of things in the design that I am having a hard time with.* The inclusion of the barbarian and monk as full classes and not backgrounds and or subclasses* Too many class features* Too granular of feats* Subclasses, I conceptually like but I am not sure they are being consistent through all classesSo the inclusion of the barbarian and monk as full classes… 2nd edition got this right, they turned them into kits. I feel the same thing should happen here too. There is no need to separate out a barbarian from a fighter. There just is not. Both are trying to do virtually the same thing. The monk is just a fighter who can punch instead of use a weapon or if you wanted to make them more mystical you could make them a caster, and even best have a monk casting methodology (see my thoughts below on this).For class features and feats I want them to swap their plans for each because I think it goes counter to their design parameters. Let me explain. Feats are like triple sized buckets of abilities that you can swap for an ability boost. Class features are small abilities that come each level and add a little ability. People who are looking for a simple game will just gain the ability boosts. Players who want to dive in to the character building complexity will want the feats. The problem is I think people who are looking for the simplicity do not want a class feature every level they want the triple sized buckets as their class feature, the player who wants the feat complexity wants the smaller tidbits that they can manage, so would enjoy selecting more feats. So triple sized class features and mini feats (and pair feats with say a +1 to a stat, for those looking for simplicity).Subclasses, it has been stated that hexblades might be a fighter subclass and shadowdancers might be a rogue subclass. The only problem I see is that they already have arcane caster / warrior type class the bard. I don’t see how they intend on balancing the caster non-caster stuff. If you can just plug in the casting… what is the difference between a paladin and a fighter then? Also is the difference between a Mage/warlock and a Cleric/death domain are these subclasses equally scaled in their overall effect on the root class? Right now, I think, they are not.I actually like putting in all of the different specialty casters under one roof (mage). To make it work though, it needs to use one casting methodology across all classes and subclasses. This may be what they have in mind already, I don’t know. I think the vancian methodology would be the best implementation for all casters; it’s simple and its classic. Then in the DMG provide alternate casting methods that could either be allowed on a character by character basis, or the DM says in this campaign setting all casters cast this way. This actually gives the most ability of customization and the most ability to keep it simple too. Examples: you might want a ranger with spell points, because you like the idea. You might like a druid with artificer methodology (hopefully this is what they do with the artificer) so you make items/runes/sigils/glyphs to manifest your magic. You might want a cleric with at-will magic because you like that. Also the DM might say in this setting everyone uses at-will magic, period or vancian or whatever. Lots of options.Fighter (warrior extra feats/ability boosts)Rogue (warrior special extra background)Ranger (warrior / natural caster)Paladin (warrior / divine caster)Bard (warrior / arcane caster)Mage (arcane caster)Cleric (divine caster)Druid (natural caster)Barbarian (warrior ???)Monk (warrior ???)Note I am using the term warrior for non-caster, realizing there are differences in type. Those differences as I see them are Fighter more Str based and front line and Rogue more Dex based special tricks but not front line.</blockquote>

Verification