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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 8057377" data-attributes="member: 7017304">Okay, the third is what I'm usually thinking of, because that's the only way to do it that doesn't involve either a) reducing choices or b) adding complexity.For example, if all bard concepts need to fit into a single subclass of rogue, we need either a huge list of bardic inspiration options for the bard to choose from (at least a dozen), which is going to make playing a bard even harder. As well as making it harder to balance, since now we need to worry about every possible combination of bard features, not just the subclasses overall. There are already classless games and they don't play the same as DnD. And you'd still either get sneak attack as a bard or not get sneak attack as a rogue, and if you don't get sneak attack why call all the ideas rogues? What do they all share beyond the skill system that every class uses?If you need a dozen or more subclasses for four classes to not lose variety (without adding a huge amount of complexity), then you're just moving the decision point form 12 classes x 5 subclasses to 4 classes x 15 subclasses, which is at best a wash in terms of overall gameplay.And no, 'just refluff the same mechanic over and over' isn't an answer. If I wanted a dramatically less mechanically deep game, I would play another game. There are a lot of options for such a thing. Making DnD yet another rules-lite game isn't going to work for me. If it did, I would be playing Fate already.</blockquote>

Verification