Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 4040651" data-attributes="member: 18">I think the poll is a poor one because it doesn't have a middle option, but I picked high, because for D&D, and the style 4E is going for, high is more appropriate than low. Like Oakwood, around a dozen classes is where I'm most comfortable.I'd rather see versatility in the base classes than a special, new, base class being needed for each conceptual variant of a role. For example, I often come across people wanting to play "swashbuckling"-type melees in D&D. In 3E, you could not replicate this with a combination of rogue and fighter, and indeed a new base class had to be made. For 4E, I'd really hope that either Rogue or Fighter or both could be used for that "role", given all the options those classes are supposed to possess.I'm pretty sure what we'll actually see if extremely high granularity (WotC seems to have ideas for another half-dozen base classes at least, probably three times that), the annoyance value of which will be compounded by only the initial base classes being properly "supported" across later products, just like in 3E (where later base classes were supported patch-ily if at all). Still, implementation is everything. I may yet be surprised and impressed.</blockquote>