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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SailorNash" data-source="post: 7690429" data-attributes="member: 6788401">Agreed. I was using the Fighter subclasses as those were the most blatant examples, but Sword Bard is almost as bad. If in my mind I can't see the difference between a Valor Bard or a Sword Bard, then the subclass could use some work to make it stand out more. Or, those options could better be written as something else other than a subclass.Jester, for example, immediately strikes me as different enough to be worth of it's own distinction...after that, it's a matter of adding whatever mechanics best encapsulate that "feel". Sword Bard has different mechanics but the same flavor as Valor Bard. Cavalier and Scout have different flavors but the same mechanics as Battlemaster.One thing I hadn't considered at first about making the new Fighter abilites maneuvers? That would allow others to take them via feat. I don't think anyone would be happy there...Fighters would lose the one cool thing their subclass gives them, and everyone else would be spending double the "feat tax" to take that plus Mounted Combat (for example). As written they look like maneuvers, and wouldn't be bad ones to have in the general pile. But for strong concepts like Scout and Cavalier they'd probably be best served with their own abilities.Of all these, I do think Sword Bard worries me the most. In 3rd Ed, instead of just Rogues for example, we had every manner of thief, cutpurse, bandit, robber, treasure hunter, and highwayman. Same with most other classes. Without strong concepts to differentiate them, they all come across as multiple ways to model the same thing. Leads to a more clunky system at best, or possible abuse at worst depending on what and how these things stack.</blockquote>

Verification