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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7327549" data-attributes="member: 15700">In the "How would you handle subclasses in 6e" thread, I noted how I am a proponent of the core 4.  But let me step back a second and address the OP on a point:While true B/X had race as class, it's not realistic nor desirable to do a modification that went back to that, because the vast majority would rather not have all dwarves be fighters, etc.  So in that case, the core 4 have existed, and for the longest running period of any other edition.  The precedence is there.  "The core four" is also a well established concept in D&D that most people understand what you're talking about.  it's more about roles than an actual class.Now, as to why I support it.* 5e has backgrounds and feat packages.  IMO, a natural progression is to expand feat packages to actually be more like subclass packages, but not restricted to any particular class.  So you have the core four classes: fighter, rogue, cleric, magic user.  From there you could have a bard subclass package, but could be a fighter bard, or a rogue bard.  * By doing the packages in this manner, you can achieve a wide variety of archetypes without running into class bloat.  What I mean by this is...*...With so many individual classes, there is a lot of overlap and not enough distinction to make them an individual class.  The difference between class A and class B might only be a few minor things.  And in my opinion, minor differences are better handled by feats and packages, not by core classes.Also, passive aggressive comments taking digs at "grognards" and saying how we just want a time machine show that you don't understand the point at all (nor want to), and aren't helpful to the discussion at all.  I kindly ask you that if you have nothing of value to add, please refrain from insulting other people or their ideas.</blockquote>

Verification