Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 5945589" data-attributes="member: 6690511">Good point. I guess my response is that the fighter&nbsp; pretty much is nothing more than &quot;use weapons and are good at&nbsp; using them,&quot; but your distinction is valid. The more I read this thread,&nbsp; the more I agree with Mike Mearls: it depends on how much they end up&nbsp; overlapping.To&nbsp; me that's really weird, as I cannot think of Assassin as anything other&nbsp; than &quot;Rogue with better sneak attack and worse trapfinding&quot; or Druid as&nbsp; anything other than &quot;Cleric of specific religion.&quot;&nbsp;Just to clarify, I'm not saying the subclasses shouldn't&nbsp; get a full class writeup, or in any way be &quot;less&quot; than base&nbsp; classes.Again, I'm not saying that the terms&nbsp; &quot;base class&quot; and &quot;subclass&quot; should actually appear in the&nbsp; book.I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by subclass.&nbsp; I'm not saying the base class needs to be blank and the subclasses&nbsp; exist on top of that. I'm saying that if the thematic definition of one&nbsp; class is broad enough to encompass another class, that other class&nbsp; should be defined as existing within the definition of the first class. See what I mean? [I agree with your next post, &quot;subclass&quot; was definitely the wrong choice of word.] I could, but I wish I didn't have to.Not much.No--as I say, the subclasses do not have to be mechanically similar to the base classes.Can you explain what you mean here? I am by no means campaigning for the removal of the subclasses, if that's what you're arguing against. If you're saying that defining the subclasses as subclasses makes them narrower than the base class, then my response is, they already are by definition narrower than the base class, and that's the point of calling them subclasses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GX.Sigma, post: 5945589, member: 6690511"] Good point. I guess my response is that the fighter pretty much [I]is[/I] nothing more than "use weapons and are good at using them," but your distinction is valid. The more I read this thread, the more I agree with Mike Mearls: it depends on how much they end up overlapping.To me that's really weird, as I cannot think of Assassin as anything other than "Rogue with better sneak attack and worse trapfinding" or Druid as anything other than "Cleric of specific religion." Just to clarify, I'm not saying the subclasses shouldn't get a full class writeup, or in any way be "less" than base classes.Again, I'm not saying that the terms "base class" and "subclass" should actually appear in the book.I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by subclass. I'm not saying the base class needs to be blank and the subclasses exist on top of that. I'm saying that if the thematic definition of one class is broad enough to encompass another class, that other class should be defined as existing within the definition of the first class. See what I mean? [I agree with your next post, "subclass" was definitely the wrong choice of word.] I could, but I wish I didn't have to.Not much.No--as I say, the subclasses do not have to be mechanically similar to the base classes.Can you explain what you mean here? I am by no means campaigning for the removal of the subclasses, if that's what you're arguing against. If you're saying that defining the subclasses as subclasses makes them narrower than the base class, then my response is, they [I]already are by definition [/I]narrower than the base class, and that's the [I]point [/I]of calling them subclasses. [/QUOTE]

Verification