Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vikingkingq" data-source="post: 6005056" data-attributes="member: 66208">I think the question of evocativeness is absolutely one that has to be confronted - classes shouldn't have mechanics that don't suit their image and story, and their mechanics should enhance their image and story rather than being neutral. I think Sneak Attacks successfully evoke an important aspect of being a Rogue - they shouldn't be the beginning and the end of it, but for a long time, they've done a good job at what they do. Why should there be connections, if they don't exist in the class concepts? Rogues aren't trained warriors; they spend their time trying to avoid fair fights whenever possible. Their mechanics should reflect that. Rangers are wilderness experts and hunters; which means their training is in stalking, ambushing, and laying traps - not shoulder-to-shoulder infantry combat. Barbarians are untrained natural fighters who are uncontrolled berserkers, and their mechanics should reflect that wildness; Expertise Dice reflect disciplined and intelligent combatants who can react to changing conditions on the battlefields by selecting maneuvers they've trained for years to perfect. The two systems don't match. Paladins are warriors, but they're warriors who have profoundly been touched by higher powers, and their mechanics should reflect that. And unless we're going to make Paladins simply better than Fighters, there's a tradeoff that comes with the ability to lay on hands, smite your enemies, and otherwise channel the divine. Mechanics are absolutely not arbitrary. Mechanics define gameplay and should be as evocative of the character as possible. Having classes share mechanics for simplicity's sake alone decreases the distinctiveness of the classes, because their mechanics aren't as identifiable of their class any more. While I think a lot of the criticism about 4e was overblown, the shift from spellcasters using Vancian magic to being on the same AEDU schedule as other classes did make their mechanics less distinctively spellcastery. Thus, if you can accomplish the same design goal for the Rogue (or any other "martial" class) without copying a mechanic, you should absolutely do so. Ok, but what I'm not seeing here is the value added from "hooking into" ED. How does it make the Rogue's playstyle feel more rogueish, as opposed to slotting in Ambush Feats into existing Schemes?</blockquote>

Verification