Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Garthanos" data-source="post: 9685411" data-attributes="member: 82504">Generally speaking if you look at classless games they often include some stereotypical builds it highlights the function of classes and what they enable is easy creation of archetypes.&nbsp; In 4e another element approach to combat ie battlefield role was reflected as well (Gygax presenting fighters as they who defend is quite a D&amp;Dism). I could create a solid Samurai using the Ranger or the Fighter or the Warlord. A fencing master duelist might be a Rogue or a Fighter. A Scout might be a Ranger or a Rogue.&nbsp; You pointed out Robinhood as the Legendary Archer probably most definitely as the Ranger (see also Warlord archery if you wanted to emphasize Robin as the Soldier back from war).&nbsp; But if one was adjusting classes with versatility in mind they could have made the crossbow support rogue has into a more general archery support upped the trick shots a bit more and well you get the picture.&nbsp; The Archetypal Warlord Odysseus was considered a rogue by the Romans (called him Ulysses but also presented him different).&nbsp; I am actually fine with there being more than one route to achieve or present a style or type of character.&nbsp;5e went with simpler / fewer options but use (arguably unsafe) multiclassing to increase flexibility and subclasses to make selecting a build easy, which is not a bad idea (even if the implementation I am not happy with).&nbsp; &nbsp; TLDR classes make building to type easier and are not technically ever necessary to my thinking they do serve a solid purpose and having a variety of approaches to a role can be quite valuable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Garthanos, post: 9685411, member: 82504"] Generally speaking if you look at classless games they often include some stereotypical builds it highlights the function of classes and what they enable is easy creation of archetypes. In 4e another element approach to combat ie battlefield role was reflected as well (Gygax presenting fighters as they who defend is quite a D&Dism). I could create a solid Samurai using the Ranger or the Fighter or the Warlord. A fencing master duelist might be a Rogue or a Fighter. A Scout might be a Ranger or a Rogue. You pointed out Robinhood as the Legendary Archer probably most definitely as the Ranger (see also Warlord archery if you wanted to emphasize Robin as the Soldier back from war). But if one was adjusting classes with versatility in mind they could have made the crossbow support rogue has into a more general archery support upped the trick shots a bit more and well you get the picture. The Archetypal Warlord Odysseus was considered a rogue by the Romans (called him Ulysses but also presented him different). I am actually fine with there being more than one route to achieve or present a style or type of character. 5e went with simpler / fewer options but use (arguably unsafe) multiclassing to increase flexibility and subclasses to make selecting a build easy, which is not a bad idea (even if the implementation I am not happy with). TLDR classes make building to type easier and are not technically ever necessary to my thinking they do serve a solid purpose and having a variety of approaches to a role can be quite valuable. [/QUOTE]

Verification