Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 5944653" data-attributes="member: 6690511">In the early days of OD&amp;D and 1e, we had these things called subclasses. If you don't know what those are, it basically means that, e.g., the Ranger is a special kind of Fighter, the Druid is a special kind of Cleric, the Assassin is a special kind of Rogue, the Illusionist is a special kind of Wizard. The subclasses got a full class writeup just like the base classes; it's just that they were explicitly called out as a special variety of the base classes.I argue that this is a good idea that should be implemented in D&amp;D Next.Let me stress again that I'm not talking about demoting the Paladin to a theme, and I'm definitely not talking about having a Figher (Slayer), a Figher (Knight), and a Figher (Weaponmaster). I'm talking about having a nice long class list a la 3e, but some of them are defined as &quot;a special kind of&quot; another class.This thread isn't even about the term &quot;subclass&quot; itself (as that has certain connotations), but just the idea of defining some classes as varieties of other classes.Why? It allows classes to exist within the mechanical and flavorful definition of other classes. Why isn't a Ranger just a Fighter with wilderness skills? Why isn't a Paladin just a Fighter with divine powers? Why isn't a Barbarian just a Fighter who can rage? If they're defined as subclasses, the answer is that they are Fighters, they're just special varieties of Fighter.<a href="https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/205694998329569280" target="_blank">I asked Mike Mearls via Twitter, and he said maybe.</a>So what do you think?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GX.Sigma, post: 5944653, member: 6690511"] In the early days of OD&D and 1e, we had these things called subclasses. If you don't know what those are, it basically means that, e.g., the Ranger is a special kind of Fighter, the Druid is a special kind of Cleric, the Assassin is a special kind of Rogue, the Illusionist is a special kind of Wizard. The subclasses got a full class writeup just like the base classes; it's just that they were explicitly called out as a special variety of the base classes. I argue that this is a good idea that should be implemented in D&D Next. Let me stress again that I'm not talking about demoting the Paladin to a theme, and I'm definitely not talking about having a Figher (Slayer), a Figher (Knight), and a Figher (Weaponmaster). I'm talking about having a nice long class list a la 3e, but some of them are defined as "a special kind of" another class. This thread isn't even about the term "subclass" itself (as that has certain connotations), but just the idea of defining some classes as varieties of other classes. Why? It allows classes to exist within the mechanical and flavorful definition of other classes. Why isn't a Ranger just a Fighter with wilderness skills? Why isn't a Paladin just a Fighter with divine powers? Why isn't a Barbarian just a Fighter who can rage? If they're defined as subclasses, the answer is that they [B][I]are[/I] [/B]Fighters, they're just special varieties of Fighter. [URL="https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/205694998329569280"]I asked Mike Mearls via Twitter, and he said maybe.[/URL] So what do you think? [/QUOTE]

Verification