Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 7329528" data-attributes="member: 6788934">I don't think it's a good idea. For starters, those classes aren't as broad as everyone acts like they are. Clerics in particular are actually thematically narrower than a number of other &quot;advanced&quot; classes, IMO. The subclass system only adds a finite amount of range, given that, so far, it isn't used to modify base classes, only add on to them.For two, if you're going to do this, you might as well remove classes altogether. If you're going to have classes at all, it's better to have more, not fewer, so that players can use classes to create a mostly unique identity in the game.The main problem I see in 5e is that they gave us 12 somewhat arbitrary conventional classes while leaving out a number of archetypes that should be handled as full classes but doesn't seem like they ever will be. It's my opinion that with about six to eight additional base classes, and perhaps a couple of official class variants (staring at you, cloistered cleric) we could achieve better parity and cover pretty much every major archetype imaginable. Mine would be something like this:WarlordPugilistWitchShamanScholar/ExpertSwordmage (with a better name/concept behind it)That awesome Emergent class on DMG</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Einlanzer0, post: 7329528, member: 6788934"] I don't think it's a good idea. For starters, those classes aren't as broad as everyone acts like they are. Clerics in particular are actually thematically narrower than a number of other "advanced" classes, IMO. The subclass system only adds a finite amount of range, given that, so far, it isn't used to modify base classes, only add on to them. For two, if you're going to do this, you might as well remove classes altogether. If you're going to have classes at all, it's better to have more, not fewer, so that players can use classes to create a mostly unique identity in the game. The main problem I see in 5e is that they gave us 12 somewhat arbitrary conventional classes while leaving out a number of archetypes that should be handled as full classes but doesn't seem like they ever will be. It's my opinion that with about six to eight additional base classes, and perhaps a couple of official class variants (staring at you, cloistered cleric) we could achieve better parity and cover pretty much every major archetype imaginable. Mine would be something like this: Warlord Pugilist Witch Shaman Scholar/Expert Swordmage (with a better name/concept behind it) That awesome Emergent class on DMG [/QUOTE]

Verification