Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9274347" data-attributes="member: 7006">But did it really?I mean on the face of it, sure, you could say &quot;Look!&nbsp; Four groups!&nbsp; Warriors, experts, divine casters, arcane casters!&nbsp; Just what the Core Four crowd wanted!&quot;&nbsp; But if you are then going to divide those four groups into four classes each and then divide each of those four classes into four subclass each... what are you actually creating that is that different?So instead of a character gaining (for example) 8 features from Class (shared by every member of that class) and 4 features from subclass... they now get 2 features from Class Group, 6 features from Class and 4 features from subclass.&nbsp; Does that really give you anything much of note?&nbsp; Yes, Bards, Rangers and Rogues might now all share Expertise and Evasion (as an example) as a feature... but everything else is all still different between those &quot;Experts&quot;.&nbsp; And don't we pretty much have this kind of thing already?&nbsp; Classes share Expertise, classes share Fighting Styles, classes share Cantrips, classes share Evasion.To my mind, all Class Groups do is put a trio of classes together in a box for no real or useful reason... other than maybe descriptive purposes.&nbsp; But has description been the issue for people?&nbsp; Or the reason some people desperately want to go back to just Four Classes?&nbsp; I don't think so.The only reason I see for condensing class numbers back down to four is to reduce the number of unique mechanics that are found.&nbsp; So instead of 12 classes all with (for example) 12 unique features each (including all manner of unique subclass features) for a total of like 144 total unique features across the entire class spectrum... you only have four classes with 12 unique features each, for a total of 48 total features.&nbsp; Which is fine if that's really what you want... but I will say that flies in the face of most players who keep wanting more and more player-facing splatbooks.&nbsp; Those splatbooks hand out more and more class and subclass features, which flies in the face of Core Four gameplay.&nbsp; If you want to make every warrior-type character a Fighter it means you want every character to have the exact same set of combat features/mechanics as every other warrior-type character (other than what you'd get from subclass)-- and adding a bunch of additional new rules and features from a splatbook that you can take to differentiate your warrior PC from another goes completely against that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9274347, member: 7006"] But did it really? I mean on the face of it, sure, you could say "Look! Four groups! Warriors, experts, divine casters, arcane casters! Just what the Core Four crowd wanted!" But if you are then going to divide those four groups into four classes each and then divide each of those four classes into four subclass each... what are you actually creating that is that different? So instead of a character gaining (for example) 8 features from Class (shared by every member of that class) and 4 features from subclass... they now get 2 features from Class Group, 6 features from Class and 4 features from subclass. Does that really give you anything much of note? Yes, Bards, Rangers and Rogues might now all share Expertise and Evasion (as an example) as a feature... but everything else is all still different between those "Experts". And don't we pretty much have this kind of thing already? Classes share Expertise, classes share Fighting Styles, classes share Cantrips, classes share Evasion. To my mind, all Class Groups do is put a trio of classes together in a box for no real or useful reason... other than maybe descriptive purposes. But has description been the issue for people? Or the reason some people desperately want to go back to just Four Classes? I don't think so. The only reason I see for condensing class numbers back down to four is to reduce the number of unique mechanics that are found. So instead of 12 classes all with (for example) 12 unique features each (including all manner of unique subclass features) for a total of like 144 total unique features across the entire class spectrum... you only have four classes with 12 unique features each, for a total of 48 total features. Which is fine if that's really what you want... but I will say that flies in the face of most players who keep wanting more and more player-facing splatbooks. Those splatbooks hand out more and more class and subclass features, which flies in the face of Core Four gameplay. If you want to make every warrior-type character a Fighter it means you want every character to have the exact same set of combat features/mechanics as every other warrior-type character (other than what you'd get from subclass)-- and adding a bunch of additional new rules and features from a splatbook that you can take to differentiate your warrior PC from another goes completely against that. [/QUOTE]

Verification