Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 4066610" data-attributes="member: 55966">So why all this hub-bub on multiple threads that D&amp;D is changing too much, and the initial knee-jerk response that change is usually bad rather than good.&nbsp; I'm sick of the current edition to the point where 3e is one of the last games I want to play because for about 3 years I've known most of of the problems with it.&nbsp; 3.5 fixed some problems (such as the Ranger class) but there are problems with the way the game is structured down to the root (such as multiclassing) that simply can't be fixed without a substantial overhaul.Depends what you want.&nbsp; I could see an argument for D&amp;D still being D&amp;D if you did remove character classes altogether.&nbsp; A lot of people are complaining for example that the rogue has too few weapons, others are complaining that they have to take skills they don't want.&nbsp; I could therefore see the case being made therefore to remove the classes and simply have all the powers as a loose grab bag.&nbsp; Want a gang leader?&nbsp; Grab a few dirty fighting powers, grab a few leadership powers that the warlord has, and presto.&nbsp;&nbsp; All the abilities with none of the of the stuff you don't want.&nbsp;&nbsp; GURPS of course, is an example of an RPG that operates this way.However, you would still have characters be fighting Dragons, inside Dungeons, with magic and weapons.&nbsp; That's really all the brand name really requires.&nbsp; Is continuity necessary over previous editions?&nbsp; Maybe from a marketing standpoint... but I see no moral imperative nor do I assume that there is an ideal form of D&amp;D rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm with Aristotle that forms are recognized by their function.&nbsp; You know it is a chair if you sit on it, you know it is D&amp;D if there are dungeons being crawled and dragons being killed.&nbsp; I myself am unsure what should have been scrapped or saved for the 4e rogue class.&nbsp;&nbsp; I like D&amp;D roles, am pleased that they are being designed to work together, and I hope they have equivalent combat power levels.&nbsp; It will all come out of the wash when I find out the other 2/3 of what my rogue is supposed to be.&nbsp; I do know that elves are the best archers among the rogues, and that it is a deliberate design decision.&nbsp; I can only guess what the dwarves, halflings, humans etc. are going to do to customize the class by adding to the powers and weapon list.&nbsp; I can only guess what the other powers will be, how easy it will be to add more, or how much of a role feats will play in customization.&nbsp;&nbsp; I will say that I would rather play a brawny rogue rather than a trickster rogue, because it is got a more exotic spice.&nbsp; I could come up with a pretty good approximation of the trickster rogue with 3e rules, but I don't think I could match the unshaven brutality of the brawny rogue.&nbsp;&nbsp; A fighter/thief might be the closest, but is there an ability to twist the knife in someone, and can a fighter/thief fight dirty when he isn't flanking?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ferratus, post: 4066610, member: 55966"] So why all this hub-bub on multiple threads that D&D is changing too much, and the initial knee-jerk response that change is usually bad rather than good. I'm sick of the current edition to the point where 3e is one of the last games I want to play because for about 3 years I've known most of of the problems with it. 3.5 fixed some problems (such as the Ranger class) but there are problems with the way the game is structured down to the root (such as multiclassing) that simply can't be fixed without a substantial overhaul. Depends what you want. I could see an argument for D&D still being D&D if you did remove character classes altogether. A lot of people are complaining for example that the rogue has too few weapons, others are complaining that they have to take skills they don't want. I could therefore see the case being made therefore to remove the classes and simply have all the powers as a loose grab bag. Want a gang leader? Grab a few dirty fighting powers, grab a few leadership powers that the warlord has, and presto. All the abilities with none of the of the stuff you don't want. GURPS of course, is an example of an RPG that operates this way. However, you would still have characters be fighting Dragons, inside Dungeons, with magic and weapons. That's really all the brand name really requires. Is continuity necessary over previous editions? Maybe from a marketing standpoint... but I see no moral imperative nor do I assume that there is an ideal form of D&D rules. I'm with Aristotle that forms are recognized by their function. You know it is a chair if you sit on it, you know it is D&D if there are dungeons being crawled and dragons being killed. I myself am unsure what should have been scrapped or saved for the 4e rogue class. I like D&D roles, am pleased that they are being designed to work together, and I hope they have equivalent combat power levels. It will all come out of the wash when I find out the other 2/3 of what my rogue is supposed to be. I do know that elves are the best archers among the rogues, and that it is a deliberate design decision. I can only guess what the dwarves, halflings, humans etc. are going to do to customize the class by adding to the powers and weapon list. I can only guess what the other powers will be, how easy it will be to add more, or how much of a role feats will play in customization. I will say that I would rather play a brawny rogue rather than a trickster rogue, because it is got a more exotic spice. I could come up with a pretty good approximation of the trickster rogue with 3e rules, but I don't think I could match the unshaven brutality of the brawny rogue. A fighter/thief might be the closest, but is there an ability to twist the knife in someone, and can a fighter/thief fight dirty when he isn't flanking? [/QUOTE]

Verification