Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Voss" data-source="post: 4041137" data-attributes="member: 57593">It depends on the system really, and if it works.What worries me for 4e is the initial classes have a lot of overlap, conceptually even if the power lists are distinct.Fighter--Paladin--Cleric form a fairly close spectrum of fairly blurred archetypes- Fighting Guy and Holy Warrior.&nbsp; The Warlord, as much as I like the concept, further complicates this by being Inspirational Guy, with a side of Fighting.So thats 4 of the initial classes, all in a few overlapping boxes.The Ranger and Rogue might be distinct, conceptually, since you can picture them as Wilderness Guy (and maybe Archer Guy) and Urban Guy, but there seems to be some shared space with mobile Swashbuckling melee guy.Wizard and Warlock could have some conceptual overlap, or not, depending on how you want to argue it.&nbsp; Both sound like they can easily be Blaster Guy if they want, and depending how their fluff (what is magic? where does it come from?) is defined, they can blur even further.&nbsp; And, of course, 'getting magic from an another entity' blurs the line between Cleric and Warlock.So even though there are 8 classes, the granularity doesn't seem very high, or even middling.&nbsp; And with more classes in later books, there may well be a very high number of classes, the differences between them may even shrink with time- think of it a rainbow with each power source being a different color.&nbsp; One class may be solidly in the middle of the color, but the rest will fade toward other colors at the edges.And of course, the class training feat will really blur the lines.So I'm really expecting low granularity with what will become an absurdly high number of classes.&nbsp; Hopefully it will be done in a way that avoids the class train wreck of 3e, but we'll see...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voss, post: 4041137, member: 57593"] It depends on the system really, and if it works. What worries me for 4e is the initial classes have a lot of overlap, conceptually even if the power lists are distinct. Fighter--Paladin--Cleric form a fairly close spectrum of fairly blurred archetypes- Fighting Guy and Holy Warrior. The Warlord, as much as I like the concept, further complicates this by being Inspirational Guy, with a side of Fighting. So thats 4 of the initial classes, all in a few overlapping boxes. The Ranger and Rogue might be distinct, conceptually, since you can picture them as Wilderness Guy (and maybe Archer Guy) and Urban Guy, but there seems to be some shared space with mobile Swashbuckling melee guy. Wizard and Warlock could have some conceptual overlap, or not, depending on how you want to argue it. Both sound like they can easily be Blaster Guy if they want, and depending how their fluff (what is magic? where does it come from?) is defined, they can blur even further. And, of course, 'getting magic from an another entity' blurs the line between Cleric and Warlock. So even though there are 8 classes, the granularity doesn't seem very high, or even middling. And with more classes in later books, there may well be a very high number of classes, the differences between them may even shrink with time- think of it a rainbow with each power source being a different color. One class may be solidly in the middle of the color, but the rest will fade toward other colors at the edges. And of course, the class training feat will really blur the lines. So I'm really expecting low granularity with what will become an absurdly high number of classes. Hopefully it will be done in a way that avoids the class train wreck of 3e, but we'll see... [/QUOTE]

Verification