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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 9819071" data-attributes="member: 5038">(Edit: [USER=58172]@Yaarel[/USER] if you see this, I tagged you with regards to the Cleric point 3: Spells and studies of societal stratification  where, if the society has three (?) or more levels, there being tendency for creator deities to become "aitios" and intermedaries becoming more specialized in the "Domains" they are given to take over.)My thoughts are additions to much of what has already been stated and  influenced by episodes of the Mike Mearl's Happy Hour where Mike Mearls stated1. Players should be playing the character they want to play at first level (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 19:58). "We don't want you want you to feel like you have to wait to play the character that you want to play. We want you to feel you are playing the character as early as possible,preferably, 1st level. Then, as you gain levels, you gain more fun stuff to add to that character You are already playing what you want to play and then you just get more toys to play with as your character gets more abilities" (Happy Fun Hour 4/4/18 24:02-24:25). 2. Core class abilities should be something that all character of the class would want. The core class should allow you to portray the character you want "without gaining abilities that you stop using, feel are irrelevant, or go against what your character is" (Happy Fun Hour: Fighter Warlord 3/16/18 11:50).Artificer: I  don't like the Alchemist as a subclass. Ithink the Alchemist  should have been its own class with its own subclasses dealing with explosives, powders, potions, apothecary, Jekyll/Hyde transformation and leaving the Artificer as the Craftsman/mechanical Tinkerer class as I see the two as separate Archetypes. Thankfully,  Mage Hand Press with its Alchemist and Craftsman classes, Taron "Indestructoboy" Pounds with his Alchemist class, and some other third parties recognized this.Bard: I agree with Mike Mearls's statement that the class should have received its subclass at first level. According to Mearls, core classes that receive their subclass at 3rd level should be "seeded with enough options at first and second level" to avoid an "awkward transformation" (Happy Fun Hour Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18 21:16) and taking a subclass should not "fundamentally change your character in a seemingly non-sensical way when you gain your subclass" (Happy Fun Hour 4/4 about 23:20), but further augment the concept. For example, when taking your subclass, you should not be changing your equipment (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 19:22). The Valor Bard breaks this and Mike said that the Bard should have had its subclass at first level (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 22:10). I also think that the PHB should have included  a more roguish subclass and a druidic influenced bard so we could have the more scholarly Lore Bard, the warrior Valor Bard, a roguish Bard, and a nature themed tribal Lore keeper. Subclasses at first level and/ the 2024 Druidic order could have also allowed more customization including more tailored spell lists to themeCleric:  Where to start?1.  In my opinion, the Cleric needed something like the 2024 Cleric's Divine Order for additional customization although I think that the 2024 class could use more Divine Order options. By pulling this out of the subclass, it allows the DM or DM and player to work on tailoring the Domains to the campaign's deities and religious orders. 2. Divine Strike and Potent Spellcasting: I think 2024 was a long the right lines in pulling this from the domains and placing it in the class (although,  I do wish there were additional alternatives). I also would have been fine with discussion of choosing one or the other when taking the subclass. I know for my own campaign deities, I did not agree with the designer's choice 3. Spell List: I don't like the Domains sharing the large class list of spells to draw from.  For a monotheistic deity, a general pantheon serving priesthood, or a pantheon where all deities are omnipotent, the large spell list might work. However, for a pantheon where deities have a more narrow powered to their domains (even if the priests worship/recognize other deities when the situation is appropriate) which seems to reflect most D&D worlds, I start to have an issue. I remember from an anthropology of religion class that in  non-egalitarian societies with three or more ranks of society, the tendency is for the creator deity to become aitios (idle/non-interfering) and assigning  domains to intermediary deities whom are more specialized in their domains, It then makes sense, imo. for a  smaller list of shared spells (e.g. something akin to the 2e All Sphere) with priests receiving additional spells tied to specifically to a diety's domains whether the spells are granted or are the results of specific Rites known only to the priesthood  (whether the priest's are tied to temples or individual families), It ensures that worshippers come to  a deity's specific priests boosting their status whether through achieved status or ascribed status and that of the deity itself. Also, in a pantheon where opposition exists between specific gods, why would a deity grant spells/Powers tied to their Domain to a priest of their rival?   ([USER=58172]@Yaarel[/USER] , did I recall the specialization of deities and its ties to levels societal stratification correctly. It has been twenty plus years and my books are not handy). 4. As with spell lists, I have issues with all Clerics getting Turn Undead/Destroy Undead. It works fine, in my opinion, for a deity of Life Domain or Grave Domain, but I would rather have had each Domain get something more Domain Thematic.Fighter: I know we have the Cleric and Paladin, but I would have also liked a Divine casting Fighter subclass and appreciate a couple of Hospitaler type fighter subclasses. More options for approaching divine warriors are good.Monk: I wish this class was more flexible and/or  it  had an official Pugilist class counterpart similar to that by Sterling Vermin. The Monk gets pidgeon-holed as the unarmed combat specialist class, but it comes with lots of baggage making it inadequate for handling many Asian martial style and their specific  legendary/cinematic abilities even if creating specific subclasses to model the style and also certain concepts (e.g. the iron body Monk).  In a campaign not using optional Feats and Multi-classing, a character wanting a specific Thematic martial arts style picks up a lot of abilities that just don't fit. It just gets worse, again, in my opinion, when moving away from Asian inspired martial artists for subclasses. Some people say to just rename certain class features, but I still find it grating and unsatisfactory when having to squint at the reflavoring in an attempt to make it  work.Paladin: I have an issues with the various subclasses sharing the same spell List. I think the spell lists should be more thematically tied to the specific Oath.Ranger: I agree with Mearls when he stated in a "Happy Hour" video that the class should have had support for an Urban environment at first level. When creating an Urban Ranger themed Vigilante subclass, Mike ran into the problem that the Ranger class itself had no features or options supporting an urban environment. This meant that a player wanting the Urban themed subclass would be stuck with wilderness abilities that did not fit the concept before finally acquiring the subclass. As a result,  the player did not get to play the character concept from the beginning and would then be stuck with unwanted features.Actually, the same case could be made for the Druid class when creating an Urban Druid  since nature exists in urban environments and Urban environments can have their own "spirit", but the class features do not support an Urban environment.Rogue: The Rogue, in my opinion, covers too many Archetypes and this hurts some of the subclasses.  It covers the sneaky assassin and thief, the non-magical Scout/Hunter/wilderness warrior,  and the Light armored swordsman (e.g. the Swashbuckler),  because the designers decided that   the class for the light armored martial type (according to Mears in a Mike Mearls Happy Hour).  However, it leads to problems<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Scout: This is supposed to cover non-magical, non-raging  Hunter/Scout/Guerrilla fighter shares stealthiness, Expertise and Light Armor with the rogue. However, this archetype tends to be more tough/hardy warriors than assassins and thieves and usually has Con as as one of their Good saves. Also, similar to the Ranger player, who would would want to play the Vigilante Mike was creating for his Happy Hour, only to find that Natural Explorer has no Urban Environment feature at first level sticking the player with a class feature that has to be ignored (and requiring Mike had to create a modified or alternate feature for Natural Explorer ), the player wanting the Scout Rogue Archetype gets stuck with Thieves' Cant which may not be appropriate and requiring the player to ignore it (unless the DM creates a wilderness variant for Thieves' Cant).  Also, the player gets Tool Proficiencies that do not reflect a wilderness character which has to be ignored (unless the DM is kind enough to allow the player to swap out  Tool Proficiencies for something more appropriate). If the DM does not work with the player, the player is stuck not only ignoring features which falls under bad class design according to Mike, the player also changes how the character is played upon receiving the Scout subclass (another no, no of class design according to Mike).</li> </ul> <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The Light armored Swordsman/Warrior in media  shares the Rogue's Light Armor and Saving Throws and  sometimes Evasion and certain skills (usually from background when this happens). However, in many instances in literature, TV, and film, the Light Armored Swordsman (e.g. Corsairs/Pirates, Duelists/Fencers, Kensei, Musketeers, some Gladiots etc) often share many maneuvers with the Battlemaster).  Since multi-classing and feats are optional in 2014, this poses a problem.</li> </ol> To get around Multiclassing and Feats being optional, there are a few options <ol style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">having a Rogue option similar to the 2024 Cleric Divine Order and Druid Primal Order, but swapping out Sneak Attack for  Battlemaster maneuvers similar to the 3e Unearthed Arcana Martial Rogu</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Moving the archetype from Rogue to the Fighter and creating something similar to 2024 Cleric Divine Order and Druid Primal Order, but with additional class feature options at 1st and second level</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Creating a new class that fills the gap between Battlemaster Fighter and Rogue with its own subclasses (Corsair, Duelist/Fencer, Gallant, Kensei, Musketeer, Swashbuckler)</li> </ol>Sorcerer: I wanted more bloodlines<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Arcane Bloodline: a bloodline of a family of powerful sorcerers and more attuned to the presence of magic (e.g. sensing) magic), the flow of magic, and the use of metamagic rather than gaining elemental Powers, gaining features of a Dragon/ Celestial/ whatever, etc. (</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Abyssal/Demonic Bloodline with features tailored it the specific type of demon/ Demon Prince ancestor</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Infernal/Devil Bloodline with features  tailored to the specific type of Devi/Arch-Devill ancestor</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">a Destined Bloodline similar to the Pathfinder 1e Destined Bloodline</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">a Fey Blood Sorcerer</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">a White Witch/ Elsa cold/ice sorcerer</li> </ol>Warlocks: I wanted more individualized patrons<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Arch-Fey Patron: I wanted a list of individual Fey Patrons with their own individual Pact features</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The Fiend Patrons: I wanted a list of individual Demon Prince (e.g. Demogorgon, Orcus) and Arch-Devil Patrons with their own individual Pact features</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Great Old Ones: I wanted a list of individual Vestige and any Lovecraftian Old Ones in public domain</li> </ol>Wizards: Ideally, I would have preferred more focused spell lists for the Specialist wizards.</blockquote>

Verification