Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7325319" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Conservation of design space. Never do with a class what could be done with a subclass; never do with a subclass what could be done with a feat.Look Pathfinder. That game is incredibly bloated with classes that exist just to express a very specific character concept or showcase a very specific mechanical gimic. Does the game really need a whole class worth of mechanics just so someone can play a Gunslinger? Why not just make a Feat Chain for gun tricks? Not only does that save on bloat, it also opens up more build possibilities - instead of gunfighting and trick shots being the province of one class, any character can tailor their build to be able to use it if they want.As for why Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue specifically? Well, they are the four most iconic D&amp;D classes, and also happen to be some of the broadest, most archetypal classes, which gives a lot of room under their umbrellas for subclasses. And Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard fit nicely as representatives of the basic power types - Martial, Divine, and Arcanr. Rogue is kind of the odd one out there, and a decent argument could be made with consolidating them into Fighter. It could also be argued that Druid is really its own archetype independent from Cleric, and deserves to be on the class list, potentially as the representative of nature magic. There’s lots of ways you could go with it, and the “core 4” classes might not necessarily be the best option, but they have so much support mostly because of their legacy as the first classes in the game (yeah, rogue came after the other three, along with ...monk, I think? But monk is one of those narrow concepts that might be better expressed as a subclass - unarmed fighters.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7325319, member: 6779196"] Conservation of design space. Never do with a class what could be done with a subclass; never do with a subclass what could be done with a feat. Look Pathfinder. That game is incredibly bloated with classes that exist just to express a very specific character concept or showcase a very specific mechanical gimic. Does the game really need a whole class worth of mechanics just so someone can play a Gunslinger? Why not just make a Feat Chain for gun tricks? Not only does that save on bloat, it also opens up more build possibilities - instead of gunfighting and trick shots being the province of one class, any character can tailor their build to be able to use it if they want. As for why Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue specifically? Well, they are the four most iconic D&D classes, and also happen to be some of the broadest, most archetypal classes, which gives a lot of room under their umbrellas for subclasses. And Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard fit nicely as representatives of the basic power types - Martial, Divine, and Arcanr. Rogue is kind of the odd one out there, and a decent argument could be made with consolidating them into Fighter. It could also be argued that Druid is really its own archetype independent from Cleric, and deserves to be on the class list, potentially as the representative of nature magic. There’s lots of ways you could go with it, and the “core 4” classes might not necessarily be the best option, but they have so much support mostly because of their legacy as the first classes in the game (yeah, rogue came after the other three, along with ...monk, I think? But monk is one of those narrow concepts that might be better expressed as a subclass - unarmed fighters.) [/QUOTE]

Verification