They either need to add subclass names for every class that has multiple versions, or remove the ones they've already implemented for the original classes (Arcanist, etc.). While I have a slight personal preference for the latter at this point, I can see why they would do the former as it would be less confusing going forward. They really need to do one or the other though, and soon.
IF they implement subclass names for all classes instead of just removing them for the original classes, then here's where I cast my votes:
Paladin (Champion)
Bard (Minstrel)
Cleric (Celibrant) <--- badly needed robed priest variant
Warlock (Theurgist)
Ranger (Vagrant)
Assassin (Arbiter)
Druid (Keeper)
Next?
IF they implement subclass names for all classes instead of just removing them for the original classes, then here's where I cast my votes:
Paladin (Champion)
Bard (Minstrel)
Cleric (Celibrant) <--- badly needed robed priest variant
Warlock (Theurgist)
Ranger (Vagrant)
Assassin (Arbiter)
Druid (Keeper)
Next?
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
It's really bothering me how some of the original classes that have newer essentials versions have been given subclass names and others haven't. Why dont' they just update them all in the same way at the same time? The inconsistency that is running rampant all over 4e's schemas is driving me mad.
Has there been any kind of word on this? Do they just intend to leave the original Ranger as Ranger, despite that there are 2 other types of rangers? Do they intend to continue calling it the Warlord (Marshal) even though there are no other subclasses?
I'm not sure this requires a new thread. Why not just continue the discussion from the one you already started?
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...It's really bothering me how some of the original classes that have newer essentials versions have been given subclass names and others haven't. Why dont' they just update them all in the same way at the same time? The inconsistency that is running rampant all over 4e's schemas is driving me mad.
Has there been any kind of word on this? Do they just intend to leave the original Ranger as Ranger, despite that there are 2 other types of rangers? Do they intend to continue calling it the Warlord (Marshal) even though there are no other subclasses?
I thought about bumping it, but it hadn't been posted on for a while so I just started a new one.
edit: hah, nm, I didn't realize it was only on the second page. My mistake, I would have just bumped it.
I favor the idea of adding subclasses for those classes who need it. It's not too bad for our one group but I can see were it might get confusing in the bigger sense.
Our most recent games were DDE only but going forward we're apparently gonna be mixing it up a bit. One fella wants to play a PH fighter (weaponmaster) and another wants to play a PH warlock (no subclass name); the rest of us will be sticking with our Essential subclasses.
I favor the idea of adding subclasses for those classes who need it. It's not too bad for our one group but I can see were it might get confusing in the bigger sense.
It's the inconsisency that really bugs me, and it's plaguing the hell out of 4e, seriously sabotaging its professional quality. For instance:
Why were Dark ones and Firbolg not even mentioned in the recent Shadowfell/Feywild supplements when they were cast as major players in early 4e books and should have been new PCs?
Why have martial practices been left in the dust?
Why did they alter an established naming convention for NW domains?
Why have we gone months and months with some original classes having subclass names and some not?
Why were gnomes and wilden left out of the recent fey race utility power update article?
Why were subraces introduced in a very lopsided fashion when they should have just been backgrounds? (I can all but guarantee they won't do any more)
Why is there no Feywild CS supplement coming out to correspond with the Heroes book like there was with the Shadow book?
Why have we gone months and months with some original classes having subclass names and some not?
They lack sufficient OCD for it to be important?
