Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ondath" data-source="post: 9069965" data-attributes="member: 7031770">So looking to the replies in general, I agree about some points: The Synergy feats that currently exist are generally geared towards specific class combinations (for instance, the barbarian/druid combo explicitly enhances class-specific abilities), and A5E's new freeform spell schools might actually do futureproofing better than OneD&amp;D's approach. So I'm kinda backing down on the idea that power source spell lists are needed, though I think all spells really need to get all possible alternate schools tagged on them and continue to do so for each new spell.That said, I think Synergy feats need both approaches. Chains like Nightstalker and Untamed clearly work by combining specific class fantasies, and generalising them would lead to weird stuff. But some feat chains don't actually focus on specific class fantasies at all. <s>Batman</s> Vigilante chain for instance does not rely on adept or ranger class features, and in fact artificer had to be retroactively added because the Batman fantasy clearly gels with Artificer (gadgets and all), but the initial feat chain only listed two classes so they had to tack on Artificer afterwards.So perhaps one way to do this would be not to create end-all-be-all, singular class groups (so Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks are not only marked by belonging in the Mage group), but create class tags, much like how A5E adds new spell schools. So Wizards could have the tags Arcane and Full Caster, while Paladin would be Divine and Half-Caster, and so on. Then some synergy feat chains would work on specific classes (like Untamed), but other feats could target class tags (such as Vigilante chain requiring a Mundane class of some sort and some sort of &quot;Expert&quot; class), which would futureproof those Synergy feats.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ondath, post: 9069965, member: 7031770"] So looking to the replies in general, I agree about some points: The Synergy feats that currently exist are [I]generally[/I] geared towards specific class combinations (for instance, the barbarian/druid combo explicitly enhances class-specific abilities), and A5E's new freeform spell schools might actually do futureproofing better than OneD&D's approach. So I'm kinda backing down on the idea that power source spell lists are needed, though I think all spells really need to get all possible alternate schools tagged on them and continue to do so for each new spell. That said, I think Synergy feats need both approaches. Chains like Nightstalker and Untamed clearly work by combining specific class fantasies, and generalising them would lead to weird stuff. But some feat chains don't actually focus on specific class fantasies at all. [S]Batman[/S] Vigilante chain for instance does not rely on adept or ranger class features, and in fact artificer had to be retroactively added because the Batman fantasy clearly gels with Artificer (gadgets and all), but the initial feat chain only listed two classes so they had to tack on Artificer afterwards. So perhaps one way to do this would be not to create end-all-be-all, singular class groups (so Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks are not only marked by belonging in the Mage group), but create class tags, much like how A5E adds new spell schools. So Wizards could have the tags Arcane and Full Caster, while Paladin would be Divine and Half-Caster, and so on. Then some synergy feat chains would work on specific classes (like Untamed), but other feats could target class tags (such as Vigilante chain requiring a Mundane class of some sort and some sort of "Expert" class), which would futureproof those Synergy feats. [/QUOTE]

Verification