Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mecheon" data-source="post: 8522509" data-attributes="member: 6801776">And I argue against it. Exploring new mechanical spaces in a self-contained space, that's what classes are trying to do. You're expanding sideways to give each thing a unique space and carving pieces off to explore on their own, rather than piling more on top of archetypes that may not apply to it.The assassin is oft considered a weaker rogue class. What if rather than just shrugging and left it be, we, instead, carved it off to explore what makes it an assassin and try to get it to a baseline degree it works with other classes, without being weighed down by no longer needed expectations from being a rogue. On the Gish side of things, the EK has its problem that, even without all of its spells, its a perfectly usuable fighter, and therefore you've gotta give it a low amount of spells to counter this. What if instead, you made a specific chassis to work for the Gish idea, so you didn't have &quot;Fighter but can throw out some spells&quot; or &quot;Caster who can get into melee but is mostly effective either being an unhittable tank or just blasting like any other wizard&quot;Subclasses are as much bloat as classes, its just they have to carry the weight put on them from their raw class. Sometimes it can work fine and lead to fun things, like a lot of the Warlock ones. Other times, the sheer root of the class just interferes with what's trying to happen and doesn't give it its full&nbsp; mechanical allowance to explore fully. And then other times we get the Strixhaven experiment.Its just like that the whole thing with the racial stuff. Just like how ever dwarf apparently comes out of the womb knowing about stoneworks, even if he's Urist McBeachaxe, the beach-living dwarven lifeguard who's never set foot in a building made of anything but wood, apparently every battlefield commander has to be a skillful fighter, because everyone remembers that time Alexander the Great carved a dude up with his action surge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mecheon, post: 8522509, member: 6801776"] And I argue against it. Exploring new mechanical spaces in a self-contained space, that's what classes are trying to do. You're expanding sideways to give each thing a unique space and carving pieces off to explore on their own, rather than piling more on top of archetypes that may not apply to it. The assassin is oft considered a weaker rogue class. What if rather than just shrugging and left it be, we, instead, carved it off to explore what makes it an assassin and try to get it to a baseline degree it works with other classes, without being weighed down by no longer needed expectations from being a rogue. On the Gish side of things, the EK has its problem that, even without all of its spells, its a perfectly usuable fighter, and therefore you've gotta give it a low amount of spells to counter this. What if instead, you made a specific chassis to work for the Gish idea, so you didn't have "Fighter but can throw out some spells" or "Caster who can get into melee but is mostly effective either being an unhittable tank or just blasting like any other wizard" Subclasses are as much bloat as classes, its just they have to carry the weight put on them from their raw class. Sometimes it can work fine and lead to fun things, like a lot of the Warlock ones. Other times, the sheer root of the class just interferes with what's trying to happen and doesn't give it its full mechanical allowance to explore fully. And then other times we get the Strixhaven experiment. Its just like that the whole thing with the racial stuff. Just like how ever dwarf apparently comes out of the womb knowing about stoneworks, even if he's Urist McBeachaxe, the beach-living dwarven lifeguard who's never set foot in a building made of anything but wood, apparently every battlefield commander has to be a skillful fighter, because everyone remembers that time Alexander the Great carved a dude up with his action surge. [/QUOTE]

Verification