Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pariah Silver" data-source="post: 5566152" data-attributes="member: 6676568">While I agree with you on this part, I think the problem stems from the fact that WOTC didn't know they were going to be doing this when they designed 4E.&nbsp; I really get the impression that they started developing classes for Essentials, and somewhere along the line they realized that they'd made multiple kinds of the same class and it was getting confusing.&nbsp; Grouping them all together as subclasses makes great sense, but they had to use what was already out there.For example, right now a feat that has &quot;fighter&quot; as a prereq works with the weaponmaster, knight, and slayer.&nbsp; If you left fighter as a subclass of the &quot;warrior&quot; super-class, then you'd have to errata each and every fighter feat.Though, if WOTC had done things like this from the beginning, I really think they'd have gone the route you suggest.&nbsp; Its much neater (and the name weaponmaster is rather silly).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pariah Silver, post: 5566152, member: 6676568"] While I agree with you on this part, I think the problem stems from the fact that WOTC didn't know they were going to be doing this when they designed 4E. I really get the impression that they started developing classes for Essentials, and somewhere along the line they realized that they'd made multiple kinds of the same class and it was getting confusing. Grouping them all together as subclasses makes great sense, but they had to use what was already out there. For example, right now a feat that has "fighter" as a prereq works with the weaponmaster, knight, and slayer. If you left fighter as a subclass of the "warrior" super-class, then you'd have to errata each and every fighter feat. Though, if WOTC had done things like this from the beginning, I really think they'd have gone the route you suggest. Its much neater (and the name weaponmaster is rather silly). [/QUOTE]

Verification