Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9150265" data-attributes="member: 6704184">No. Please don’t try to twist my words as if they support your position when you know they don’t. It is strange to care at all that there are Spellcasting fighter subclasses, while playing a subclass that doesn’t cast spells. Previous iterations don’t have subclasses like 5e does. They might have something a pedant could argue is similar by some technicality, or is called the same name, but they don’t do what 5e subclasses do. The reason that I don’t accept the argument made by someone else that subclass features don’t count as the class supporting something is that the character isn’t complete before getting thier subclass.&nbsp;The character really is Race/Class/Background/Subclass, so if a fighter subclass makes the character good at socializing, the fighter class now supports that. It also supports both Spellcasting and complete unmitigated mundanity, because it has subclasses that do both. As an aside: It casts spells fairly poorly, which is why I push back hard against any idea in ranger threads of making the base class have no spells and leaving Spellcasting to the subclasses. That, and the fact that the class would almost certainly end up with one Spellcasting subclass that has Spellcasting as its identity, rather than being a meaningful ranger concept that has spells in thier toolkit. OTOH, using spell slots to fuel and thus limit a feature set that aren’t spells, aren’t magic, have no components, work just fine in anti-magic zones, etc, would allow the Ranger to support both casting and non-casting characters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 9150265, member: 6704184"] No. Please don’t try to twist my words as if they support your position when you know they don’t. It is strange to care at all that there are Spellcasting fighter subclasses, while playing a subclass that doesn’t cast spells. Previous iterations don’t have subclasses like 5e does. They might have something a pedant could argue is similar by some technicality, or is called the same name, but they don’t do what 5e subclasses do. The reason that I don’t accept the argument made by someone else that subclass features don’t count as the class supporting something is that the character isn’t complete before getting thier subclass. The character really is Race/Class/Background/Subclass, so if a fighter subclass makes the character good at socializing, the fighter class now supports that. It also supports both Spellcasting and complete unmitigated mundanity, because it has subclasses that do both. [I][B]As an aside[/B][/I]: It casts spells fairly poorly, which is why I push back hard against any idea in ranger threads of making the base class have no spells and leaving Spellcasting to the subclasses. That, and the fact that the class would almost certainly end up with one Spellcasting subclass that has Spellcasting as its identity, rather than being a meaningful ranger concept that has spells in thier toolkit. OTOH, using spell slots to fuel and thus limit a feature set that aren’t spells, aren’t magic, have no components, work just fine in anti-magic zones, etc, would allow the Ranger to support both casting and non-casting characters. [/QUOTE]

Verification