Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mecheon" data-source="post: 9160659" data-attributes="member: 6801776">The problem is, all of these classes have shown they're able to stand on their own and have wider options from their base concept.&quot;What do we gain from merging them all together&quot; is the question I'm asking. Because no one has given me a convincing argument why we should worry about removing them, no arguments on how it reduces things, makes it easier for people to play archetypes (if anything I'd argue it makes it harder), or that they're making it more complex, as each of these ones has its own thematically appropriate niche that doesn't intrude on other classes (Aside from pally and cleric being similar but, D&amp;D being the only thing with Cleric means I'd be much more willing to ditch Cleric before pally). The only argument I've heard was &quot;Older editions had it like this&quot; and the nostalgia argument isn't working on meSubclasses are a 5E thing, so when discussing subclasses of course we'll discuss 5E's percularities. Likewise if discussing Kits I'd be talking 2E, or Prestige classes would be 3E and 3.5EThe ranger's idea is being not a full on front-line fighter but more of a skirmisher. The full armor concept doesn't really fit with the idea of the ranger as presented by most people. I can't see Dritz rocking up in full plate for sure. If a ranger is being dumped down with that, that's an example of how the class merge idea won't work, as you're being given stuff irrelevant to the character concept you're playingBlame D&amp;D for pushing hard on the &quot;Wizards have books that store their spells&quot; in early editions on that. That being so heavy on book-based wizardry meant that other ideas on casting were well open</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mecheon, post: 9160659, member: 6801776"] The problem is, all of these classes have shown they're able to stand on their own and have wider options from their base concept. "What do we gain from merging them all together" is the question I'm asking. Because no one has given me a convincing argument why we should worry about removing them, no arguments on how it reduces things, makes it easier for people to play archetypes (if anything I'd argue it makes it harder), or that they're making it more complex, as each of these ones has its own thematically appropriate niche that doesn't intrude on other classes (Aside from pally and cleric being similar but, D&D being the only thing with Cleric means I'd be much more willing to ditch Cleric before pally). The only argument I've heard was "Older editions had it like this" and the nostalgia argument isn't working on me Subclasses are a 5E thing, so when discussing subclasses of course we'll discuss 5E's percularities. Likewise if discussing Kits I'd be talking 2E, or Prestige classes would be 3E and 3.5E The ranger's idea is being not a full on front-line fighter but more of a skirmisher. The full armor concept doesn't really fit with the idea of the ranger as presented by most people. I can't see Dritz rocking up in full plate for sure. If a ranger is being dumped down with that, that's an example of how the class merge idea won't work, as you're being given stuff irrelevant to the character concept you're playing Blame D&D for pushing hard on the "Wizards have books that store their spells" in early editions on that. That being so heavy on book-based wizardry meant that other ideas on casting were well open [/QUOTE]

Verification