Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4068623" data-attributes="member: 4937">Except, we can quite easily come up with heroes that don't meet that definition, especially when we understand 'skillful' in the D&amp;D context where spell casting and combat ability are not part of a skill system.&nbsp; For example, a cleric doesn't survive 'by thier wits' and skills, but rather by thier service to a diety and the power they thereby are able to manifest.&nbsp; A warrior doesn't survive 'by thier wits' and skills, but by thier prowess at arms.&nbsp; And so forth.&nbsp; We can separate the classes by asking the question, &quot;What are you most supposed to be good at?&quot;&nbsp; Now, obviously, we could answer this question with things like, &quot;Throwing daggers.&quot; or &quot;Moving quickly and silently&quot; or &quot;Great Cook&quot;, and if we aren't careful we'll need a separate 'Throws Daggers class' and a separate 'Moves quickly and silently class' and a separate &quot;Great Cook&quot; class, and so forth.&nbsp; But for a variaty of reasons, our system is more elegant if it finds some set of classes that spans all possible answers to the question while not forcing any one class to do so much and be so flexible that its becomes overly mechanically complicated.&nbsp; Core 3.X did a fairly good (though far from perfect) job of this, and 4E is I think obviously taking a huge step backward.It's not like we haven't wandered this design space before.&nbsp; Must we repeat the mistakes of the past?I think it would be instructional to consider how and why did the leather wearing rogue become iconic in the first place. To say the least.I think it is safe to say that I'm not one of 'these people'.&nbsp; As I've said before, its ok if this is what you want from a game.&nbsp; But its clear that 4E is not being designed with my needs in mind.&nbsp; Frankly, as you describe it, its being designed with the needs of noobs in mind.&nbsp; I moved past what you describe maybe 20 years ago.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4068623, member: 4937"] Except, we can quite easily come up with heroes that don't meet that definition, especially when we understand 'skillful' in the D&D context where spell casting and combat ability are not part of a skill system. For example, a cleric doesn't survive 'by thier wits' and skills, but rather by thier service to a diety and the power they thereby are able to manifest. A warrior doesn't survive 'by thier wits' and skills, but by thier prowess at arms. And so forth. We can separate the classes by asking the question, "What are you most supposed to be good at?" Now, obviously, we could answer this question with things like, "Throwing daggers." or "Moving quickly and silently" or "Great Cook", and if we aren't careful we'll need a separate 'Throws Daggers class' and a separate 'Moves quickly and silently class' and a separate "Great Cook" class, and so forth. But for a variaty of reasons, our system is more elegant if it finds some set of classes that spans all possible answers to the question while not forcing any one class to do so much and be so flexible that its becomes overly mechanically complicated. Core 3.X did a fairly good (though far from perfect) job of this, and 4E is I think obviously taking a huge step backward. It's not like we haven't wandered this design space before. Must we repeat the mistakes of the past? I think it would be instructional to consider how and why did the leather wearing rogue become iconic in the first place. To say the least. I think it is safe to say that I'm not one of 'these people'. As I've said before, its ok if this is what you want from a game. But its clear that 4E is not being designed with my needs in mind. Frankly, as you describe it, its being designed with the needs of noobs in mind. I moved past what you describe maybe 20 years ago. [/QUOTE]

Verification