Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5951521" data-attributes="member: 54877">If it always turned out to be class + theme + theme, I wouldn't be in favor of the idea. (Themes gained or expanded at later levels, as they have already indicated, is another matter, one I'm for.)&nbsp;The main reason for allowing multiple themes at first level, that I can see, would be if several classes just were not working out in the design. If so, then you might have a lot of traction with going with three different patterns, depending on the individual class:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">standard class + theme</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">narrower class + theme + theme</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">expansive class + no starting themes</li>
</ul>If class design develops such that there is a real need for some classes to naturally be narrow and others more expansive, then varying the number of themes attached would be a good way to handle it (instead of trying to max stuff work together that doesn't really quite fit).&nbsp;That's a logical extension of class + theme, if the material within &quot;class&quot; varies a lot. It might also allow some specialized niche protection for certain classes.&nbsp; If for some reason they really want something kept in one class, but it is difficult to reconcile the power of that something in the normal class boundaries, then eating the starting theme works. Make the expansive class, but your &quot;theme&quot; is essentially already baked in. Likewise, for the narrower, &quot;vanilla&quot; classes, the current fighter being one arguable candidate, additional themes to make up for the missing elements is reasonable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5951521, member: 54877"] If it always turned out to be class + theme + theme, I wouldn't be in favor of the idea. (Themes gained or expanded at later levels, as they have already indicated, is another matter, one I'm for.) The main reason for allowing multiple themes at first level, that I can see, would be if several classes just were not working out in the design. If so, then you might have a lot of traction with going with three different patterns, depending on the individual class: [LIST] [*]standard class + theme [*]narrower class + theme + theme [*]expansive class + no starting themes [/LIST]If class design develops such that there is a real need for some classes to naturally be narrow and others more expansive, then varying the number of themes attached would be a good way to handle it (instead of trying to max stuff work together that doesn't really quite fit). That's a logical extension of class + theme, if the material within "class" varies a lot. It might also allow some specialized niche protection for certain classes. If for some reason they really want something kept in one class, but it is difficult to reconcile the power of that something in the normal class boundaries, then eating the starting theme works. Make the expansive class, but your "theme" is essentially already baked in. Likewise, for the narrower, "vanilla" classes, the current fighter being one arguable candidate, additional themes to make up for the missing elements is reasonable. [/QUOTE]

Verification