Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 6336560" data-attributes="member: 54843">I'd like to hear him revisit subclasses. They were an idea that grew in prominence during the playtest process, and frankly they do a few different things now, and differ depending on class. For example, the wizard and cleric subclasses seem to be almost entirely about customizing what your character does, whereas the fighter subclasses are almost entirely about how he does it. You can look at a cleric and tell what god he worships, and seeing a wizard in battle will give you strong clues what school he specializes in, but I don't know if there's an in-game way to tell a "weapon master" apart from a "champion."If this was a necessary compromise to satisfy the various types of fighter players, that's fine. But that raises further questions: what about classes like barbarian and monk, which at least in the playtest were sort of in between - some subclasses were more mechanically involved than others, but they also had different flavor and did different stuff? And why isn't there a "simple wizard" or "simple sorcerer" subclass that gets rid of the neo-Vancian spellcasting that a lot of people despise? Did they get some kind of feedback that people actually didn't want alternate spellcasting mechanics by subclass, or did it prove too complex to cover the requisite mechanical differences AND flavor differences in those classes?I'd love to hear developer opinions on this, both because 5e spell casters seem like a bit of a missed opportunity to me (so far), and because this is clearly an area where playtest feedback and development changes made for some pretty big shifts in the team's approach.</blockquote>

Verification