Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6104122" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yes, and "aggressive proselytizer for my god" is also, so what? I can run a wizard as a drooling idiot who likes to fight with daggers, but that doesn't invalidate the wizard class...Really? They did? Where is it? lol. Were you a 4e closed playtester or something? No such class appears or was ever rumored to appear except in the wish fantasy of some crunch lovers. Notice that WotC paid them no mind at all and proceeded to make classes that were thematic, not 'filled that grid hole'. Or they might be the Avenger class. This argument is becoming silly. In fact if you play 4e you will find that it can do a LOT of stuff that previous editions have real problems doing. Part of the reason is that they got rid of the idea of 'class as world building tool', it simply doesn't exist in 4e as it did in 3e (and to a lesser degree in AD&D). This frees up the notion of class greatly (though WotC hardly seems to have ever acknowledged the constraint you claim that is inherent in that). The other thing that 4e did was free up the concept of class from being a NARROW tool. In past editions if you used the Ranger class it meant you were a very specific type of character (albeit one which covers a lot of characters in fiction). 4e certainly built each class around an archetypal concept, but the system is broader and each class can be shaped a LOT by using common mechanics (IE taking feats, MCing, hybrid, or just taking PP/ED choices). I can make Van Helsing, Porfirio, Jackie Chan, Felsig, etc all in 4e with very little problem. 4e's rich array of classes really helps. Of course you can pick out a few experiments that didn't work out as well as others, but conceptually it was quite successful. I think 5e would do well to embrace that kind of design and perfect it. Perhaps that means making more things sub-classes, shifting some options around between being a class and being something else, but I don't think it means you should have far fewer classes. I also think that the whole concept of stacking together different classes ala AD&D MCing never worked well. I'd rather come at it from 4e's direction and just make classes with enough options to encompass what people want and enough customization to tweak it to your needs.</blockquote>

Verification