Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9150440" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Given the ... length of this thread ... I am sure that this has already been addressed, but I wanted to comment on three separate things.1. As for why I am replying, I completely agree with this statement. I have previously stated that, to me, the biggest issue with 5e is that too much design is taken up by the class, and too little is left for the sub-class. If I had a magic wand and could change only two things about the basic design of 5e, this would be one thing I would change. I don't think it would be that difficult to just take out a few extra &quot;class features&quot; at certain levels, and make those available to sub-classes. It would be an easy fix, and would allow a large amount of space for interesting design. In addition, because the designers of 5e appear to never want to add new classes, but also will create sub-classes like they're going out of style, it would make the game better for those who are looking for more variety and/or crunch without disturbing the overall balance or simplicity of the game (for those who like simplicity). The great thing about this idea is that while it would somewhat disturb full backwards compatibility, it's a relatively minor tweak that opens up a lot of design options. 2. The second thing? Too many spells. This, of course, won't change. But imagine a game where everything wasn't a spell. Where Paladins and Rangers didn't have spells, but had only abilities. Where we reduced the number of half-casters and full casters and three-quarter casters and five-eighths casters, and just had full casters, non-casters, and &quot;third casters&quot; (subclass casters).3. Finally, the solution to fixing any martial/magic gap isn't to buff martials. It's to beat down casters. Hard. With extreme prejudice. I'm sure that you could hire some martials to do it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9150440, member: 7023840"] Given the ... length of this thread ... I am sure that this has already been addressed, but I wanted to comment on three separate things. 1. As for why I am replying, I completely agree with this statement. I have previously stated that, to me, the biggest issue with 5e is that too much design is taken up by the class, and too little is left for the sub-class. If I had a magic wand and could change only two things about the basic design of 5e, this would be one thing I would change. I don't think it would be that difficult to just take out a few extra "class features" at certain levels, and make those available to sub-classes. It would be an easy fix, and would allow a large amount of space for interesting design. In addition, because the designers of 5e appear to never want to add new classes, but also will create sub-classes like they're going out of style, it would make the game better for those who are looking for more variety and/or crunch without disturbing the overall balance or simplicity of the game (for those who like simplicity). The great thing about this idea is that while it would [I]somewhat [/I]disturb full backwards compatibility, it's a relatively minor tweak that opens up a lot of design options. 2. The second thing? Too many spells. This, of course, won't change. But imagine a game where everything wasn't a spell. Where Paladins and Rangers didn't have spells, but had only abilities. Where we reduced the number of half-casters and full casters and three-quarter casters and five-eighths casters, and just had full casters, non-casters, and "third casters" (subclass casters). 3. Finally, the solution to fixing any martial/magic gap isn't to buff martials. It's to beat down casters. Hard. With extreme prejudice. I'm sure that you could hire some martials to do it. [/QUOTE]

Verification