Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7860956" data-attributes="member: 59848">Personally, when I look at a large majority of the classes and prestige classes from 3e/3.5, much of it was just rearranging where mechanical bonuses would go. The mechanical abilities themselves really didn't represent the thematic elements espoused by the lore or fluff tied to a class.Looking at 4e, it was somewhat similar. Many of the abilities between classes were the same, and they largely differed only in their name, the defense they hit, the type of movement they allowed, or the status they instilled.I think that the designers of 5e learned the lesson early on that there is a difference between the mechanics and how it is skinned. Nothing about the mechanics of a zombie stat block inherently scream zombie, nor do the mechanical elements of a fighter's ability scream fighter. You can describe a fighter as a berserker. You can call a barbarian an alchemist that takes a potion to change form rather than the defacto fluff around what rage is. The designers seem to understand this. And because many of the existing mechanics can be tweaked in how they are skinned to become something else thematically, I think the designers are wise to limit how many classes there are. By preferring to rely on subclasses, they are effectively showing players how an existing class can be redefined with only a few tweaks. Additionally, they seem to try and put out new subclasses only when they have some robust mechanical ideas that are really represented elsewhere in what already exists. They don't want multiple classes or subclasses having a majority of their abilities to be the same, or to rely on just changing where the bonus goes. They seem to hold out for mechanics and ideas that can stand on their own. I think that is why they finally came forward with an artificer as a core class, rather than a wizard subclass as it was originally presented. They realized that within the concept of an artificer, there was room for mechanics that really haven't been seen elsewhere in the game. One that could stand on their own and be distinct enough to make the artificer as a core class distinct. And if they can't create something that meets that standard, they then attempt to find a place within the subclasses of a class that can replicate the concept.At least, that's how I see it. YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification