Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 4158599" data-attributes="member: 2656">There is definitely more focus in class design with the new power system, and there will be far less swiss-army-knife characters that can be completely customised, regardless of their power source. While the power system allows more options for non-spellcaster classes, the need for power synergy and to fulfill role functions leads to some classes being more constrained than in previous editions. In 2e and 3e editions classes could often be customised all over the place, so much so that saying you were playing&nbsp; class X was not a sufficient indicator as to the PC's role, details of the&nbsp; exact build were necessary if a balanced party was desired.I'm OK with rangers being the definitive archer class. I'm guessing now, but I suspect the woodsman association can be dialed up or down as desired (with DM approval), as that is mostly fluff.The other issue is that with increased numbers of monsters in encounters, front-line types are more important than they used to be. I have seen lightweight and/or archer-heavy parties in previous editions, where no-one wanted to be front-line - they had big problems in large encounters as a consequence. Reducing the number of archer classes makes this issue more transparent. (granted, adventures can and should ideally be customised to suit the party, but there may not be the time or energy to do this).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aenghus, post: 4158599, member: 2656"] There is definitely more focus in class design with the new power system, and there will be far less swiss-army-knife characters that can be completely customised, regardless of their power source. While the power system allows more options for non-spellcaster classes, the need for power synergy and to fulfill role functions leads to some classes being more constrained than in previous editions. In 2e and 3e editions classes could often be customised all over the place, so much so that saying you were playing class X was not a sufficient indicator as to the PC's role, details of the exact build were necessary if a balanced party was desired. I'm OK with rangers being the definitive archer class. I'm guessing now, but I suspect the woodsman association can be dialed up or down as desired (with DM approval), as that is mostly fluff. The other issue is that with increased numbers of monsters in encounters, front-line types are more important than they used to be. I have seen lightweight and/or archer-heavy parties in previous editions, where no-one wanted to be front-line - they had big problems in large encounters as a consequence. Reducing the number of archer classes makes this issue more transparent. (granted, adventures can and should ideally be customised to suit the party, but there may not be the time or energy to do this). [/QUOTE]

Verification