Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 4111268" data-attributes="member: 1106">Not in terms of themes.&nbsp; The rogue is still a sneak, the fighter still a whacker, and the wizard still a magician.&nbsp; They just happen to know exactly how to do their job better tactically than anyone else in the party, as they gain levels.&nbsp; That would make sense.&nbsp; But no.Instead we have this upstart nothing-class that automagically knows how the rogue should be sneaking better than the rogue does, how the fighter should be fighting better than the fighter does etc. etc.&nbsp; It strains belief.&nbsp; The class is so anathema to a D&amp;D party that there's not even a name that fits.&nbsp; That's a big clue right there that it should not be core, and should be hidden away in a supplement where it can be ignored...or even better, annihilate it and divide up it's tactical abilities amongst the classes that exist, where they belong.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 4111268, member: 1106"] Not in terms of themes. The rogue is still a sneak, the fighter still a whacker, and the wizard still a magician. They just happen to know exactly how to do their job better tactically than anyone else in the party, as they gain levels. That would [i]make sense[/i]. But no. Instead we have this upstart nothing-class that automagically knows how the rogue should be sneaking better than the rogue does, how the fighter should be fighting better than the fighter does etc. etc. It strains belief. The class is so anathema to a D&D party that there's not even a name that fits. That's a big clue right there that it should not be core, and should be hidden away in a supplement where it can be ignored...or even better, annihilate it and divide up it's tactical abilities amongst the classes that exist, where they belong. [/QUOTE]

Verification