Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Voss" data-source="post: 4071673" data-attributes="member: 57593">Many roleplayers like to do things outside the box.&nbsp; Coming up with a concept is often first, class is almost an afterthought.&nbsp; Good rpg design, I would say, accommodates that.&nbsp; The more times the devs step in to the class design and state 'No, you can't do that (because we said so)', the less happy people who like to design their characters this way are likely to be.&nbsp; The forced skills are really egregious in this regard, because not a single feature of the rogue class (and yes, there may be some powers that take advantage of those skills, but the class itself does not), uses the mandatory skills in any way at all.Forcing the rogue into a role of&nbsp; 'sneaky stealer who stabs schlubs' isn't going to match with a lot of concepts.&nbsp; In the core books, where else are people going to go for rogues that don't fit the dev's vision?&nbsp; The paladin, warlock, cleric and wizard are obviously out.&nbsp; The fighter is, by design, expected to wear heavy armor.&nbsp; That probably won't work.&nbsp; The warlord?&nbsp; Maybe for a concept or two, but I doubt 'inspiring combat tactician' is going to work for more than an individual concept or two when you're coming at it with a cunning scoundrel or knowledgable forger in mind.&nbsp; Ranger?&nbsp; Maybe, but I expect most of the ranger class is going to be defined as 'forester feathers fearsome foes', or some TWF silliness (in fact, I will be mildly surprised if those aren't the two builds).So what they can't do seems rather important.At the very least, if they were designing the game with very specific roles, they should have had a lot more classes in the first book.&nbsp; &nbsp; There's still time, apparently, too.&nbsp; Put the magic items in the DMG where there is room, and add another 6 classes so more concepts aren't left out in the cold, scratching at the door.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voss, post: 4071673, member: 57593"] Many roleplayers like to do things outside the box. Coming up with a concept is often first, class is almost an afterthought. Good rpg design, I would say, accommodates that. The more times the devs step in to the class design and state 'No, you can't do that (because we said so)', the less happy people who like to design their characters this way are likely to be. The forced skills are really egregious in this regard, because not a single feature of the rogue class (and yes, there may be some powers that take advantage of those skills, but the class itself does not), uses the mandatory skills in any way at all. Forcing the rogue into a role of 'sneaky stealer who stabs schlubs' isn't going to match with a lot of concepts. In the core books, where else are people going to go for rogues that don't fit the dev's vision? The paladin, warlock, cleric and wizard are obviously out. The fighter is, by design, expected to wear heavy armor. That probably won't work. The warlord? Maybe for a concept or two, but I doubt 'inspiring combat tactician' is going to work for more than an individual concept or two when you're coming at it with a cunning scoundrel or knowledgable forger in mind. Ranger? Maybe, but I expect most of the ranger class is going to be defined as 'forester feathers fearsome foes', or some TWF silliness (in fact, I will be mildly surprised if those aren't the two builds). So what they can't do seems rather important. At the very least, if they were designing the game with very specific roles, they should have had a lot more classes in the first book. There's still time, apparently, too. Put the magic items in the DMG where there is room, and add another 6 classes so more concepts aren't left out in the cold, scratching at the door. [/QUOTE]

Verification