Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6069014" data-attributes="member: 1465">I feel quite the other way around, that changing the Rogue concept to be combat-centric diminishes its potential, and diminishes the potential of the Fighter as well. Even a Wizard class designed to be combat-centric loses its potential. Perhaps when you're talking about fulfilling more roles you have tactical roles in combat in mind? I am more interested in strategic roles in the game, thus making the classes more and more combat centric, equally good in combat etc, IMHO reduces their strategic variety, since they're all doing more often the same thing just with different weapons. The 4 original classes of D&amp;D IMHO covered different strategic archetypes, not just tactical differences.But I know very well that &quot;everybody equally good at everything all the time&quot; is what everybody likes nowadays, so I don't expect to find many around who would see my point or agree with my preferences. It's just that to me the more they go into this direction, with all class kickass in combat, all good at exploration and skills, all can heal, all can do supernatural tricks... well they are almost all already multiclassed fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard then. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes, that's my feeling exactly.Regarding having separate classes, I guess that if the game aims at being based on many classes rather than just 4 archetypes, then it's not a problem per se to have a &quot;swashbuckler&quot; class separate from the Fighter, just like there have been paladins and rangers before. My concern is not that, but rather the danger of the swashbuckler tactical-archetype diminishing the thief strategic-archetype of the Rogue class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6069014, member: 1465"] I feel quite the other way around, that changing the Rogue concept to be combat-centric diminishes its potential, and diminishes the potential of the Fighter as well. Even a Wizard class designed to be combat-centric loses its potential. Perhaps when you're talking about fulfilling more roles you have tactical roles in combat in mind? I am more interested in strategic roles in the game, thus making the classes more and more combat centric, equally good in combat etc, IMHO reduces their strategic variety, since they're all doing more often the same thing just with different weapons. The 4 original classes of D&D IMHO covered different strategic archetypes, not just tactical differences. But I know very well that "everybody equally good at everything all the time" is what everybody likes nowadays, so I don't expect to find many around who would see my point or agree with my preferences. It's just that to me the more they go into this direction, with all class kickass in combat, all good at exploration and skills, all can heal, all can do supernatural tricks... well they are almost all already multiclassed fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard then. :) Yes, that's my feeling exactly. Regarding having separate classes, I guess that if the game aims at being based on many classes rather than just 4 archetypes, then it's not a problem per se to have a "swashbuckler" class separate from the Fighter, just like there have been paladins and rangers before. My concern is not that, but rather the danger of the swashbuckler tactical-archetype diminishing the thief strategic-archetype of the Rogue class. [/QUOTE]

Verification