Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5945346" data-attributes="member: 3192">Why can't you do this for your game? That's my first question.What's stopping you simply using a naming convention at your table?What is the core game going to gain by implementing this structure?What is lost if it does? Aren't we stuck in a smaller design space if every Fighter sub-class must take principle design mechanics from the core class? (I would think so - and hope so by my preferences)My thinking is &quot;groupings&quot; help players pick options quickly as well as define the multiverse being played in. If &quot;Red Wizard of Thay&quot; is a subclass, then I understand that this is a term referring to characters existent in the campaign world. I expect that their abilities are going to be mechanically similar as well as having a common training background. If I met someone who was a Ranger claiming to be a Red Wizard of Thay, I could reliably comprehend that they were not - at least not like any kind that I had known up unto then.My issue with removing core classes is they aren't as customizable through play. Sub-classes are too, everyone defines their ranger just a little bit differently, but overall the subclasses are the more defined role and narrower scopes. They define the setting more than &quot;We have people who use magic, others who fight combats...&quot; etc. Playing a core class means more opportunity to self define and even create one's own version of a subclass, if they chose to train others to be like them (rather than broadly as the core class).EDIT: I could understand wanting to avoid Themes or Backgrounds. These are feat bundles or skill bundles, not classes. For everyone who doesn't include feats and skills the option your suggesting may be far more amenable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 5945346, member: 3192"] Why can't you do this for your game? That's my first question. What's stopping you simply using a naming convention at your table? What is the core game going to gain by implementing this structure? What is lost if it does? Aren't we stuck in a smaller design space if every Fighter sub-class must take principle design mechanics from the core class? (I would think so - and hope so by my preferences) My thinking is "groupings" help players pick options quickly as well as define the multiverse being played in. If "Red Wizard of Thay" is a subclass, then I understand that this is a term referring to characters existent in the campaign world. I expect that their abilities are going to be mechanically similar as well as having a common training background. If I met someone who was a Ranger claiming to be a Red Wizard of Thay, I could reliably comprehend that they were not - at least not like any kind that I had known up unto then. My issue with removing core classes is they aren't as customizable through play. Sub-classes are too, everyone defines their ranger just a little bit differently, but overall the subclasses are the more defined role and narrower scopes. They define the setting more than "We have people who use magic, others who fight combats..." etc. Playing a core class means more opportunity to self define and even create one's own version of a subclass, if they chose to train others to be like them (rather than broadly as the core class). EDIT: I could understand wanting to avoid Themes or Backgrounds. These are feat bundles or skill bundles, not classes. For everyone who doesn't include feats and skills the option your suggesting may be far more amenable. [/QUOTE]

Verification