Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4068540" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, of course I do.As for your broader complaint, I detested classes like the monk, paladin, druid, barbarian, and ranger that seemed to me to be specific character concepts rather than a class of concepts.  Paladin is a specific case of a divine champion.  I didn't see why such a champion not only had to be LG, but had to carry flavor suitable to an idealized medieval Christian knight.  Barbarian is a specific case of a cult warrior fanatic - in this case a Viking inspired beserker.  I saw no reason why cult warrior fanatics had to be wilderness primitives, or why wilderness primitives had to be chaotic.  I saw druid as a particular case of an animistic primitive priest, carrying lots of unnecessary northern european baggage.  I saw these as very poor designs.  The reason I saw them as bad designs is that they showed a poor understanding of the core idea of the class, and forced the creation of a new PrC's and new core classes just to allow very basic variants on the class to be created.  This led to a proliferation of mechanics, inelegance, and game imbalance.I did not see the extremely flexible classes like fighter, cleric, and rogue to be badly designed.  Rather I saw these as extremely elegant designs suggesting how the other classes might be designed.  Thus, I replaced paladin with 'Champion' (based on BotR's 'Holy Warrior/Unholy Warrior'), I replaced druid with a more generic 'shaman' class, I replaced Barbarian with a 'Fanatic' class that did not require 'wildernes primitive' as part of its description, and Ranger with a more generic 'Hunter' class.  I felt that this was in keeping with the positive trend toward greater and greater flexibility seen from 1e to 2e to 3e.  I fully expected 4E to move the game in the direction I went with it.  Instead, it seems intent on moving it in the opposite.You are making the very same mistake here as the 4E designers.  You are defining the concept of a class principally by the superficial trappings of the class.  You are neglecting the core idea of the class, which in the case of a 'rogue', is something like a skillful individual that survives by his wits.  I can very much see a guy sneaking around in a chain shirt with a club as a skillful individual that survives by his wits, whether that means his quick reflexes or his quick thinking or his fast talking - or possibly some combination of all of that.Feats are a very limited resource.  You shouldn't need to use feats in this manner.   If you force too many feats to be spent to do something, then you are effectively forbidding it by pricing it out of existence.  I shouldn't need a feat license to do something which should be part of the flexibility of the class.  Third edition proves that.Well, yeah.  Although personally, 'warlock' always struck me as among the most blatant of the 'inspired by limitations in the mechanics of the game' classes, and I have no idea why it needs to be ported into the new edition.  It seems to me that you could take everything that is interesting about 'warlock' and fold it into everything interesting about 'sorcerer' and make a better game.</blockquote>

Verification