Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8085978" data-attributes="member: 6779196">That’s why I say the more specific concepts should be on a further down branch. No class should be giving 5 pages of rage powers, thats too specific for what I feel should be under the purview of class. Classes should impart the basic, fundamental structure of the character - things like whether the character gains spells and at what levels. Then subclasses can give more specific features like proficiencies and spell lists. Then more specific features can come from more specific options like spell selection and feats.There are folks who want more classes, for sure. I think the folks who want a unique class for every concept they can think of are mostly playing Pathfinder, but there’s at least demand for a psion class, a warlord, etc. I’m among them when it comes to 5e, but if I had my druthers, 6e would take the sort of branching approach to class design that I describe above.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8085978, member: 6779196"] That’s why I say the more specific concepts should be on a further down branch. No class should be giving 5 pages of rage powers, thats too specific for what I feel should be under the purview of class. Classes should impart the basic, fundamental structure of the character - things like whether the character gains spells and at what levels. Then subclasses can give more specific features like proficiencies and spell lists. Then more specific features can come from more specific options like spell selection and feats. There are folks who want more classes, for sure. I think the folks who want a unique class for every concept they can think of are mostly playing Pathfinder, but there’s at least demand for a psion class, a warlord, etc. I’m among them when it comes to 5e, but if I had my druthers, 6e would take the sort of branching approach to class design that I describe above. [/QUOTE]

Verification