Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8146075" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I think we should differentiate here between options and decision points. I think the game would benefit from fewer of the former but more of the latter. Most subclasses are just one single decision point that gives you a handful of fixed abilities spread across the span of levels, and that feels pretty bad. The more appealing subclasses to me are the ones like the Battlemaster fighter that give you multiple maneuver options to choose from at each level that you gain a subclass feature. More decision points means more ways to make one character play differently from another. I can make two Battlemasters that feel more different from each other than, say, a Champion does from a Cavalier.This sums up why I don’t like the way 5e does (most) subclasses. I just pick one at character creation and from then on the advancement path is set in stone. I want, at later level ups, to have more decisions to make. More to think about how I want to advance my character instead of just following the book’s instructions.Eh. SCAG and XGtE didn’t really have much meat to them either. I would have preferred bolder subclass designs that gave us more to work with instead of a list of fixed upgrades at fixed levels. But I think the flaw has more to do with 5e’s fundamental design than with the subclasses themselves. It’s just not really structured for the kind of flexibility I’m looking for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8146075, member: 6779196"] I think we should differentiate here between options and decision points. I think the game would benefit from fewer of the former but more of the latter. Most subclasses are just one single decision point that gives you a handful of fixed abilities spread across the span of levels, and that feels pretty bad. The more appealing subclasses to me are the ones like the Battlemaster fighter that give you multiple maneuver options to choose from at each level that you gain a subclass feature. More decision points means more ways to make one character play differently from another. I can make two Battlemasters that feel more different from each other than, say, a Champion does from a Cavalier. This sums up why I don’t like the way 5e does (most) subclasses. I just pick one at character creation and from then on the advancement path is set in stone. I want, at later level ups, to have more decisions to make. More to think about how I want to advance my character instead of just following the book’s instructions. Eh. SCAG and XGtE didn’t really have much meat to them either. I would have preferred bolder subclass designs that gave us more to work with instead of a list of fixed upgrades at fixed levels. But I think the flaw has more to do with 5e’s fundamental design than with the subclasses themselves. It’s just not really structured for the kind of flexibility I’m looking for. [/QUOTE]

Verification