Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5983639" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Thanks for the clarification.&nbsp; I think we definitely have an area of&nbsp; agreement on the point that archetype recreation can certainly be difficult (some&nbsp; more than others) in 4e with the rules RAW (at least relative to 3e).&nbsp;&nbsp; It can be done but can it be exceedingly fiddly and, as you mention, you likely will end up with some default class build resources tied up in &quot;baggage&quot; that do not meet your specifications for the archetype (and that can be a problem in a tightly balanced game).&nbsp; This somewhat parallels my post regarding the Swashbuckler in 5e.&nbsp; If we are not going to have a large number of classes, then the classes need to have unpluggable proficiencies and features (rather than rigid presuppositions that tie up build resources in &quot;baggage&quot;) and a number of alternates available in their place.If 5e goes with a more 3e format of multi-classing (without the issues inherent to the front-loading of class features), then I think archetype recreation will be much easier across the board.&nbsp; Again though, 3e multi-classing is my preference in spirit (minus the ability to poach for defense gains and feature bloat) and would prefer it, there are some (many?) who have made the compelling argument that it undermines the class structure of DnD.&nbsp; While I personally am ok with it for many reasons (including ease of archetype recreation), those 2e, and earlier, advocates that cringe at the idea of anything undermining DnD's class-based, PC build infrastructure seem more than a little rattled by it.&nbsp; Hopefully 5e can appease their concerns while creating the archetype recreation flexibility that you (and I) endorse.It was primarily the backlash that I witnessed but there was definitely a secondary undercurrent of what you mention here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5983639, member: 6696971"] Thanks for the clarification. I think we definitely have an area of agreement on the point that archetype recreation can certainly be difficult (some more than others) in 4e with the rules RAW (at least relative to 3e). It can be done but can it be exceedingly fiddly and, as you mention, you likely will end up with some default class build resources tied up in "baggage" that do not meet your specifications for the archetype (and that can be a problem in a tightly balanced game). This somewhat parallels my post regarding the Swashbuckler in 5e. If we are not going to have a large number of classes, then the classes need to have unpluggable proficiencies and features (rather than rigid presuppositions that tie up build resources in "baggage") and a number of alternates available in their place. If 5e goes with a more 3e format of multi-classing (without the issues inherent to the front-loading of class features), then I think archetype recreation will be much easier across the board. Again though, 3e multi-classing is my preference in spirit (minus the ability to poach for defense gains and feature bloat) and would prefer it, there are some (many?) who have made the compelling argument that it undermines the class structure of DnD. While I personally am ok with it for many reasons (including ease of archetype recreation), those 2e, and earlier, advocates that cringe at the idea of anything undermining DnD's class-based, PC build infrastructure seem more than a little rattled by it. Hopefully 5e can appease their concerns while creating the archetype recreation flexibility that you (and I) endorse. It was primarily the backlash that I witnessed but there was definitely a secondary undercurrent of what you mention here. [/QUOTE]

Verification