Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7101424" data-attributes="member: 20323">Hah, I like it! Change has been made from &quot;empty calories&quot; to &quot;agnostically informative&quot;!How do you see it as a feature?What's your perspective on how that determination is made? How do you decide which class gets a subclass that's framed as a technique (e.g. Battle Master) vs. an organization (e.g. new Ranger conclaves) vs. a more narrative identity (e.g. Thief)? Is it just whatever the designer decides is best from an artistic standpoint without any underlying reasoning?The subtext of my question is: Why should the Fighter subclasses be about technique whereas, for example, the Rogue subclasses are more about holistic character identity? Is there some implicit assumption about players who play Fighters vs. players who play Rogues (or Wizards or Clerics)? Do you believe Fighter players want less story in their subclass selection than players of other classes?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7101424, member: 20323"] Hah, I like it! Change has been made from "empty calories" to "agnostically informative"! How do you see it as a feature? What's your perspective on how that determination is made? How do you decide which class gets a subclass that's framed as a technique (e.g. Battle Master) vs. an organization (e.g. new Ranger conclaves) vs. a more narrative identity (e.g. Thief)? Is it just whatever the designer decides is best from an artistic standpoint without any underlying reasoning? The subtext of my question is: Why should the Fighter subclasses be about technique whereas, for example, the Rogue subclasses are more about holistic character identity? Is there some implicit assumption about players who play Fighters vs. players who play Rogues (or Wizards or Clerics)? Do you believe Fighter players want less story in their subclass selection than players of other classes? [/QUOTE]

Verification