Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IceFractal" data-source="post: 4070772" data-attributes="member: 27704">Back when Races and Classes came out, there were some complaints that Fighter no longer supported the "agile warrior" type.  But this was countered with the statement that since the classes were flexible in flavor, you could simply play a Rogue or Ranger for your agile warrior.  And I was fine with that.  Classes as skill sets works in 3E, and can make things much cleaner, mechanically.  But that isn't what we're actually getting.  What we're getting is classes that have a great deal of inescapable flavor.  And not just metagame flavor like feat names - this is highly visible in-game flavor.  Let's take our first case, the Rogue:* Skills - Stealth and Thievery is mandatory.  Just wanted to be a agile type who doesn't sneak around stealing things?  Too bad.* Weapons - Not only is the Rogue only proficient in a small set, but their powers are specifically limited to this exact set.  Want to play a thug who uses a club, or a sniper with a bow, or an infiltrator with unarmed strikes?  Nope, you must carry a dagger and wear a black hooded cloak.  And lurk in the shadows, even in your own house.  * Ok, that's exaggeration.  But it does bring up a real point.  Since Rogues use these specific weapons, just have your guards stop anyone carrying those from entering - use magic to find the hidden stuff.  All your "disguised assassin" problems eliminated in one fell swoop.  Plus, Rogues are now useless in any kind of "prison break" scenario where there aren't a bunch of knives conveniently lying around.* And apparently slings can be used for sniping, but not bows.  Yeah, that's just bad.I'd be fine with either of these options:A) Fighters are warriors, Rogues are thieves, and this is obvious in-game.  Fighter covers all types of warriors, including agile knife fighters.B) Fighters use strength-based combat, Rogues use agility-based combat.  Rogue is sufficiently flexible to represent a non-thief, non-sneaky, knife fighter.But apparently what we get is this third option:C) Fighters are strength-based combatants who are warriors.  Rogues are agility-based combatants who are thieves.  If you want a non-thief agility-based combatant, wait for WotC to publish one.  And yes, I haven't mentioned Rangers.  That's because, based on the Rogue, I fully expect them to:1) Be locked to the bow as their primary weapon.2) Have mandatory ties to nature.And I haven't mentioned houseruling either.  Because the fact that you can fix bad rules yourself doesn't make them not bad.  And more significantly, houserules won't help you at convention games, RPGA games, or with houserule-wary DMs.  Sorry about the rant, but what I'm seeing is a mechanically-sound and promising class that's been severely handicapped by a narrow enforced flavor with visible in-game effects, for no good reason.</blockquote>

Verification