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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5999103" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree. The two 4e classes that strike me as most obviously redundant are the Runepriest (should have been a cleric variant) and the Executioner Assassin (should have been a rogue variant).Swordmage and Bladedancer are also a bit funny - mechanically distinct, but to a significant extent competing for the same mechanical space.That said, I think the design approach of D&Dnext probably allows for a bit more compression of classes. For example, I think I could tolerate a warlord specialisation rather than a separate class, because - so far, at least - D&Dnext doesn't seem to support the degree of tactical intricacy that supports the warlord as a distinct 4e class. And the shaman and druid could perhaps also be compressed together.I think this is true. I'm not sure that 3E is the model for distinct rangers and paladins. I think either 1st ed AD&D, or even moreso 4e, is a better starting point for distinctnessThis is a very good point. But D&Dnext seems a bit ambivalent, at present, about exactly how it wants to handle "story oomph". As can be seen in the current thread about backgrounds and skills, for example.Which I guess reinforces the point that working out what to do with rangers and paladins is intimately connected to working out exactly how to handle backgrounds and specialties.Cool.If a paladin has more hit dice than other PCs in order to fuel selflessness powers, is it going to be overpowered when used selfishly (I'm thinking of the problems with the 3E cleric who plays as a buffer/controller rather than a healer)?</blockquote>

Verification