Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shiroiken" data-source="post: 7838796" data-attributes="member: 6775477">The goal would be to take the four standard archetypes (classes) and ensure that all related classes use the same basic mechanics, which is exactly what the current class/sub-class system does. All I'm suggesting is taking this excellent concept, and taking it one step further. I would have four classes: warrior, mage, supplicant, and specialist, and every character among each of those classes would have some defining traits that all would share. Warriors would all be good at combat and share combat related abilities (e.g. Extra Attack). Mages would all access arcane spells, if in different ways, and would share spell related abilities (e.g. Metamagic). Supplicants would access magic thru an intermediary (cleric, druid, and warlock), and would share abilities based on this concept (there is no 5E comparable ability that I know of). Specialists would be characters that focus on skills, tools, and other non-combat, non-magic abilities, and would have abilities that focus on these (e.g Expertise).The bard is easy (Specialist, same as the Rogue), the one that concerns me most would be a psion, or one that is setting specific (like the Artificer). The problem with these are the same as they are in 5E: existing class concepts from prior editions that simply cannot be fit into an existing class require an entirely new class. The only solution would be to design the four classes (or possibly five if there's a need due to psion) in such a way to incorporate EVERY prior character class in some manner within the framework, which would be a comprehensive nightmare.On a final note, this was an interesting design theory I worked on in my head, not something that I would ever expect to see as an edition of D&D. In fact, I'd expect it more likely to occur in a game that wants to compete in the same market, but has to use different classes and mechanics to avoid IP issues with WotC. This is where I think the concept would work best, IMO, since you wouldn't have the issues I mentioned above with carryover from prior editions.</blockquote>

Verification