Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6068957" data-attributes="member: 14506">I think that you might be missing some of the potential of the way this could be designed. This would in effect recapture some of your lost fighter that you lament for. It would also would allow the rogue to fulfill more roles. I think this is the part where we might disagree, I think you want the rogue to be a non-combatant or only a combatant of opportunity, I do not see them that way at all. Rogues to me are not only burglars and thieves but also ninja, yakuza, and yes swashbucklers, scouts, and even into the highly skilled warrior types like investigators, and slayers like van helsing etc. That is a lot of ground for one concept but a system that could accommodate all of this could be developed fairly easily and they have a great start. So it would be how you design your character that tells if he will be a combatant of opportunity or a lithe swashbuckler who wades in. I am not going to say they cannot be "cleanly trained" or "academic" warrior types, I will let the player decide that for their character concept.Putting this together with what I was saying earlier, warriors (Rogues and Fighters) do not need to be the same, they need to share a unifying mechanic with all warrior types though. To draw parallel cleric and wizard spells are similar, and some are even shared but they have different spell lists. This is how I see warriors and how any potential design should go with them. I would not. Warrior types should share similar framework.Fair enough, there is a discussion to be had about if multiclassing should exist. I think it will be a fairly short discussion though. lol. By looking through the editions it has existed from 1e on and was a fairly large component of the game at that time. In fact it has been a large component of the game 1e through 3e. 4e used a different system to merge classes. It felt different. 4e multiclassing left me a little wanton for it and was one of my turn offs to the game. I think this may be true for more than just me. I dont think that the player base would be happy if it was not a component of 5e. There is definitely more than one way to handle it but it will be handled. Yes this is the heart of the argument for and against multiclassing, do you want the designers to design your class and hence character concept and feel? Without multiclassing there will be a myriad of classes and hybrid classes scripted to a theme and feel. You will be stuck if you do not like something about a class. Or do you want to be able to mix it up yourself and design your character based on your own concepts. You would pick out modular components (not just feats and skills, but class features) and plug them in. I think there are two minds on this clearly. Personally, a highly scripted character is not what I look for in D&D. I want to dig in a bit and design my PC as a player, if I am playing a leveling up game I want options to exist at each level up (or nearly so) and multiclassing is an option that I want available (either 1e style or 3e style, I dont care which, or heck both).</blockquote>

Verification