Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Undrave" data-source="post: 8298292" data-attributes="member: 7015698">I mean, if you want your subclasses to be able to straddle two different classes (or more), you're gonna need a common structure, and you're gonna need similar enough features that they can interact with the subclasses properly and if you have classes with commonality you're gonna want some kind of label to point out they can have straddling subclasses. I guess 'play style' was the wrong word, it isn't so much 'combat role' as it is a mechanical style of class building, regardless of what the actual features DO. Do you have full caster progression, half or none at all? Do you have lots of bonus to skills in your progression or not? A Cleric and a Wizard would both be in the 'full caster' mold but I don't think they have the same 'combat roles'. A Paladin and Ranger are both Half-Caster but they wouldn't have the same role in 4e either, for exemple. The way the individual classes interact with the straddling subclass features is where the interesting bit would be.  Heck, despite being full casters, I wouldn't group Bards with the other and instead group it with Rogues! Then you could have a subclass that straddle both that either gives more magical stuff or more mundane stuff so your Bards and Rogues could either specialize or expand their repertoire. They barely had enough idea for a handful of maneuvers for Tasha's. I don't think they the D&D designers could come up with a whole book without spells, even if you allowed them to include alchemical products.</blockquote>

Verification