Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 5594500" data-attributes="member: 1210">But you are suggesting that every little tiny mechanical niche needs a class to exist. I am suggesting you need to stretch your imagination a little. If I can see an easy answer to each of your &quot;missing classes&quot; using existing stuff- and I do, despite your characterizing them as straw men- there is no clear need for a new class.If you have four nails of different sizes, you don't need four different hammers to pound them into a board when the same hammer will take care of all of them.From a business perspective, WotC knows better than to cater to a tiny slice of their customers with something that takes major time, effort and money to develop. Look at this thread: it seems to me that you are pretty much the only one here clamoring for new classes, and it seems that you are clamoring for a class for every mechanic you can think of. You picked a number of very narrow, specific mechanical concepts- all of which can be at least approximated by the game as it stands- and suggest they need to be classes, followed by a &quot;not now, not many&quot; line. I can't reconcile those two statements.Finally, you are so totally off base about druids. The PH2 druid was the first melee controller for pcs. You keep saying things like &quot;Wizards and druids and invokers so forth can be built to be front-line focused, but in the same way a slayer can be an archer - they're still not a ranger.&quot; If your intent is to show that druids aren't close range controllers, all you've done is make an assertion countered in the very book the druid first appeared in.EDIT: And speaking of the front line wizard controller, I'm Major Moab's dm and I will vouch for his &quot;front line control&quot; approach to the game. And it works, not just fine, but GREAT! So I don't even know what your &quot;still not a ranger&quot; comment is supposed to mean.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 5594500, member: 1210"] But you are suggesting that every little tiny mechanical niche needs a class to exist. I am suggesting you need to stretch your imagination a little. If I can see an easy answer to each of your "missing classes" using existing stuff- and I do, despite your characterizing them as straw men- there is no clear need for a new class. If you have four nails of different sizes, you don't need four different hammers to pound them into a board when the same hammer will take care of all of them. From a business perspective, WotC knows better than to cater to a tiny slice of their customers with something that takes major time, effort and money to develop. Look at this thread: it seems to me that you are pretty much the only one here clamoring for new classes, and it seems that you are clamoring for a class for every mechanic you can think of. You picked a number of very narrow, specific mechanical concepts- [i]all of which can be at least approximated by the game as it stands[/i]- and suggest they need to be classes, followed by a "not now, not many" line. I can't reconcile those two statements. Finally, you are so totally off base about druids. The PH2 druid was the first melee controller for pcs. You keep saying things like "Wizards and druids and invokers so forth can be built to be front-line focused, but in the same way a slayer can be an archer - they're still not a ranger." If your intent is to show that druids aren't close range controllers, all you've done is make an assertion [i]countered in the very book the druid first appeared in.[/i] EDIT: And speaking of the front line wizard controller, I'm Major Moab's dm and I will vouch for his "front line control" approach to the game. [i]And it works, not just fine, but GREAT![/i] So I don't even know what your "still not a ranger" comment is supposed to mean. [/QUOTE]

Verification