NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 9142835" data-attributes="member: 1465">Well you can split until you have 100 classes and then you wouldn't be finished anyway.But other people see more value in one option that can be bent to different flavors without having to rewrite multiple times. It depends on how strong you like the ties between concepts and mechanics. Just saying this because there are people here all year long suggesting the opposite i.e. merge into less classes. After all a long time ago there was only Wizard and it didn't prevent people to picture their wizards as sorcerers, witches/warlocks, shamans, alienists, mystics...I would rather proceed in this way: does a class mechanics really prevents a concept*? Then design a new mechanic that clearly enforces the concept. Is the mechanic small to be a feat? If not, is it still small enough to be a subclass? Only if not, make a new class.*In the warlock case IMO only the "pact-breaker" does not have a mechanical representation. But does it really need one? Notice that WotC purposefully avoided any mechanic that make you lose abilities based on narrative: Clerics don't lose spells if they piss off their deity, Paladins not even if they murder babies, and alignment is not a thing (the only single outlier is Druid using metal armor, a single design mistake). Do you really want to go down the rabbit hole of codifying into a rule how a warlock should be roleplayed not to lose spells? The main effect will be to have all warlocks of the pact type roleplayed the same way so as not to break the rule.</blockquote>

Verification