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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6263697" data-attributes="member: 78752">I have to say that I don't think the developers are going about this right thus far, but it is hardly a dealbreaker for me.  I tend to think that subclasses ought to build outward from an aspect of their parent class, not introduce novel concepts that have nothing to do with the other subclasses.I think the fighter is coming together properly.  I like the distinctions and core similarities between two-weapon, great-weapon, and shield fighters; that feels like a natural division.  By contrast, I don't particularly care for the cleric strategy, which is going to result in dozens of "subclasses" and substantial overlap between many of them.The only question I have for you is, "Should domains and subclasses be the same thing?"  I agree that this is the simplest path forward, and it seems to be the one the developers are pursuing, but for my part I have reservations.Some gods are easy.  It's hard to envision a priest of Tempus who is not a warpriest, or a priest of Ilmater who is not a healer.  But should being a priest of Amaunator lock me into being a "sun-priest," with all that entails, rather than giving me the option of focusing on burning heat versus soothing light?  I feel pretty strongly that subclasses ought to be based on class mechanics, rather than fluff -- there's no bottom to that particular rabbit hole.Again, I'm thinking "fast monk," "strong monk," "tough monk," and "spiritual monk."  Leave the flavor to the players and dungeon masters.As long as these categories are kept broad in scope and finite in number, I agree that this seems to be the way to go, allowing the ranged/melee balance of the ranger to be determined by "the best weapon for the job," so to speak.  There should be no appreciable difference in the RAW between a wight hunter and a ghoul hunter.This is in line with my thinking.I think "traditional archetypes" is a good byword for this process -- for all classes, not just mages and rogues. I stand by my original assertion that the barbarian really ought to be a fighter subclass, but assuming that it will once again be its own beast (so to speak), the obvious route is totem animals.  I object to paladins as a standalone class in any system that also includes warpriests, but again, the obvious route here is to provide customization options at least for the four extreme alignments and possibly even for the five true alignments.  And I've never liked the performance-based bard, but he is as simple as codifying the differences between vocalists, orators, actors, and different instrumentalists.Again, I'm not espousing these ideas; they're just where I expect the developers to go.</blockquote>

Verification