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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6264218" data-attributes="member: 1465">Well, the subclass system doesn't really have a single purpose... on one hand, it's a framework to satisfy people with different expectations on a class, at least partially (e.g. not making wild shape a martial-oriented feature of all druids); on another hand, it's a way to cover character concepts, (e.g. Fighters focused on different styles) sometimes extending into something not generally covered by the class (e.g. Warlords); on yet another hand, it's a delivery system for optional mechanics; another is to create quasi-multiclassed concept; and yet another purpose is to dial on PC complexity...With these in mind, really there are infinite possible subclasses to design. Fighter: I'd be ok with ethnic subclasses such as Samurai, but they need to make sure they aren't picking features at random, and that instead the subclass feature are well representative of historical traits.Barbarian: at least there is plenty of room for more animal totems, beyond that I don't know.Paladin: I would stay away from designing paladins of each specific alignment, instead I would rather see different "good" ethos. There's already a lot of difference between a paladin whose main oath is to bring the guilty to justice, and another whose is to protect innocents or to free slaves and fight tyranny.Ranger: technically the possible favored enemies are a lot, but the truth is that gamers have asked for a decade already to avoid monsters-oriented abilities because apparently they are afraid not to meet those monsters after all. Thus, instead of different monsters categories, we have to look at monsters types e.g.: big solo monsters, mob monsters, swarm monsters, flying monsters, swimming monsters, very fast monsters, monsters with lots of magical features...Monks: some subclasses can be based on ideas from martial arts, but others can incorporate supernatural concepts and then there is a lot of room.Clerics: domains are potentially infinite. I wish they made more difference however, domain spells should IMHO have more unique spells (or non-cleric spells at least) rather than just "always prepared".Wizards: I don't really think all the 8 traditional schools need to be represented, but I do think that they should really feel different, not just a bunch of bonus spells. Summoner and necromancer (with small undead army) could be very interesting. Enchanter, abjurer and diviner could have non-spell abilities that are "always on".Druids: I'd like to see an evil circle of druids which do e.g. some sacrificial rituals, a druid focused on having an army of animal companions, another with just a single powerful pet (but this may not need to be a subclass), and druids who gain permanent transformation into treants or other fey creatures. I don't like blighters tho... fallen Paladins make sense, fallen Druids not so much.</blockquote>

Verification