Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snapdragyn" data-source="post: 3721330" data-attributes="member: 12432">Do we need an archetype that relies on music for its abilities? Probably not.Do we need an archetype which serves as the jack-of-all-trades class? Possibly, judging from the multiple attempts that have been made at this role in 3.5, both as classes (bard, factotum) &amp; PrCs (chameleon). Start throwing in the multitude of dual-class hybrid PrCs, &amp; it's clear that there's a call for being able to do a bit of x and a bit of y in a single character.Would your wizard not be called a wizard out of combat? Could your bard not as easily call himself a skald, warrior-poet, minstrel, troubador, player, or even just rogue (in the non-D&amp;D class sense)? I don't find that argument compelling.I don't want to choose one in combat role -- that's what the bard class offers me, variety.I appreciate the words from the designer, but again voice my concern over waiting. I'll also add this thought: although WotC may consider every PHB core, don't make the mistake of expecting that ever DM will do so. I can assure you that my DMs will not; I have had to battle for every non-core rule my groups has gained in 3.5 (Complete series, PHB2, or whatever the source might've been) &amp; I know that it will be the same in 4e. If it's in the initial 3-book release, they'll accept it as soon as they accept 4e; if it's in a later book, they'll treat it like a gift from the friendly neighbor Trojan war band.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snapdragyn, post: 3721330, member: 12432"] Do we need an archetype that relies on music for its abilities? Probably not. Do we need an archetype which serves as the jack-of-all-trades class? Possibly, judging from the multiple attempts that have been made at this role in 3.5, both as classes (bard, factotum) & PrCs (chameleon). Start throwing in the multitude of dual-class hybrid PrCs, & it's clear that there's a call for being able to do a bit of x [i]and[/i] a bit of y in a single character. Would your wizard not be called a wizard out of combat? Could your bard not as easily call himself a skald, warrior-poet, minstrel, troubador, player, or even just rogue (in the non-D&D class sense)? I don't find that argument compelling. I don't want to choose [i]one[/i] in combat role -- that's what the bard class offers me, variety. I appreciate the words from the designer, but again voice my concern over waiting. I'll also add this thought: although [b][i]WotC[/i][/b] may consider every PHB core, don't make the mistake of expecting that ever DM will do so. I can assure you that my DMs will not; I have had to battle for every non-core rule my groups has gained in 3.5 (Complete series, PHB2, or whatever the source might've been) & I know that it will be the same in 4e. If it's in the initial 3-book release, they'll accept it as soon as they accept 4e; if it's in a later book, they'll treat it like a gift from the friendly neighbor Trojan war band. [/QUOTE]

Verification