Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

Remathilis · Mar 18, 2018

FrogReaver said:
BlahBlahBlah...

A fighter could have just as easily been a background with a feat too...

Why do we even need a rogue? All the rogue archetype gives us is are various thief type characters. Why can't a thief just be a background with a feat?

Why do we need a barbarian? Can't it just be a fighter with a background and a feat?

Your argument fails because it equally applies to many other classes and subclasses already in 5e.

You should re-read what I wrote. Those specific "archetypes" Mellored suggested weren't worth more than a background, unless you think every firefighter, police constable, and lifeguard deserves a 20 level class. If so, keep the fire lit for "Alustriel Silverhand's Guide to Civil Service".

FrogReaver · Mar 18, 2018

Remathilis said:
You should re-read what I wrote. Those specific "archetypes" Mellored suggested weren't worth more than a background, unless you think every firefighter, police constable, and lifeguard deserves a 20 level class. If so, keep the fire lit for "Alustriel Silverhand's Guide to Civil Service".

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote too?

Consider the rogue class, the thief subclass and the criminal background. Why do we need a rogue class or even a thief subclass when we have the criminal background and feats like skulker. Does the thief concept deserve a class or subclass when a background and feat will do?

Satyrn · Mar 18, 2018

mellored said:
*Lifeguard: ... maybe...

Something something chainmail bikini.

Remathilis · Mar 18, 2018

FrogReaver said:
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote too?

Consider the rogue class, the thief subclass and the criminal background. Why do we need a rogue class or even a thief subclass when we have the criminal background and feats like skulker. Does the thief concept deserve a class or subclass when a background and feat will do?

I eagerly await your lifeguard 20 level class.

FrogReaver · Mar 18, 2018

Remathilis said:
I eagerly await your lifeguard 20 level class.

When a discussion devolves into only attempted witty replies then it's no longer worth having. Add some substance to your replies please or let's just call it quits?

Satyrn · Mar 18, 2018

FrogReaver said:
When a discussion devolves into only attempted witty replies

I'm flattered you suggest there was any effort put into my witty reply.

Remathilis · Mar 18, 2018

FrogReaver said:
When a discussion devolves into only attempted witty replies then it's no longer worth having. Add some substance to your replies please or let's just call it quits?

Why is it warlord people keep trying to police who can post in their threads? Guess what, you're on the goodbye list too.

FrogReaver · Mar 18, 2018

I'll rephrase my question to [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]athilis so anyone else can answer.

Why does the Thief concept deserve a Class (rogue), a subclass (thief), a background (criminal), and feats that support the concept when a background and perhaps some feats would be plenty? What is it about the Thief concept that deserves a class/subclass all it's own as opposed to say a lifeguard that would best be accomplished by a background or skill or feat?

FrogReaver · Mar 18, 2018

Satyrn said:
I'm flattered you suggest there was any effort put into my witty reply.

No need to act so nonchalant about it

FrogReaver · Mar 18, 2018

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] - It really gets old when someone like [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]athilis feels the need to announce to the world that he is going to block you. I would report the post but as he blocked me immediately after he posted I do not have the ability to report the post.

Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

Remathilis

Legend

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Satyrn

First Post

Remathilis

Legend

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Satyrn

First Post

Remathilis

Legend

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Similar Threads