Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6131762" data-attributes="member: 14506">Note that I agree with your two points. I was offering an alternative idea where having fluffy subclasses could work. This is not my preferred approach. I would prefer to have a good amount of classes that cover quite a bit of territory. Although I would like classes to be as much of a skeleton as possible. I want the background to fill in the flesh. One thing I will disagree with in your points... the barbarian should be a subclass of fighter. I think rage could be one of the alternative ways to use combat expertise that they talked about. Additionally, I would rename it berserker, and I would make barbarian a background. Barbarian is your trade it is how you survived and made your way in the world. Besides, I think barbarian background druids, rangers, rogues, fighters, heck even cleric, and wizard (warlock) could work with a barbarian background.  I disagree, If the subclasses are going to be really fluffy, you may wind up with taking fighter twice because you want to be a samurai/knight or whatever. That has been specifically barred in past editions, but if you have fluffy subclasses where you want to actually multi-class into two subclasses of the same class. This is a problem in my eye.</blockquote>