Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wolv0rine" data-source="post: 2595332" data-attributes="member: 9045">Wait a second here.&nbsp; It was bad enough when I had to listen to the obnoxious twits who used to act like playing 1E instead of 2E was some sort of mark of obsolescence spouting off that the Bard was a &quot;jack of all trades&quot;, which painfully under-represented the fact that a Bard is about music (or performing, if you want to be so broad).&nbsp; But now the ROGUE is a &quot;Jack of all trades&quot;?!?&nbsp; The Rogue is a Rogue.&nbsp; And the Rogue's roots stem directly from the Thief.&nbsp; The Rogue is not a friggin &quot;Jack of all trades&quot; any more than the Fighter is.And in general I do distain the Arcane Archer for being a bow weilder with spells.&nbsp; Anything &quot;...with spells&quot; that is not by it's core concept a spellcaster is just kind of sad and pathetic.&nbsp; Which is probably why I re-build the Ranger without spells, and do my best to ignore and underplay the limited spells available to the Paladin.Well, this can depend a lot of how you present a race-specific PrC.&nbsp; The Dwarven Defender, for example, makes perfect sense as being a Dwarven-only PrC if you present it as being specifically tailored to utilizing the natural stature, build, and propensities of dwarves.&nbsp; Sure, any race should be able to have it's own Defender (although the Medium-size races don't have that same size-build difference between them), but if the Dwarven Defender's moves, tactics, and general training maximizes the utility of the Dwarf's physical attributes, it makes sense that only they'd benefit from it to the extent of Being a Dwarven Defender.And in general, I just don't understand this whole &quot;Stop complaining if it's messed up, just re-build it&quot; trend.&nbsp; Sure I enjoy crafting mechanics and creating all sorts of things for D&amp;D, but if I have to re-build something I found in a book (that I presumably bought to be able to use it's contents), then my opinion is that the book was badly written unless the book in question was tailored to be specifically intended for a particular campaign setting.&nbsp; In which case it only makes sense that if I'm not running/playing that setting that some re-tooling is going to be needed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wolv0rine, post: 2595332, member: 9045"] Wait a second here. It was bad enough when I had to listen to the obnoxious twits who used to act like playing 1E instead of 2E was some sort of mark of obsolescence spouting off that the Bard was a "jack of all trades", which painfully under-represented the fact that a [b]Bard[/b] is about music (or performing, if you want to be so broad). But now the [b]ROGUE[/b] is a "Jack of all trades"?!? The Rogue is a Rogue. And the Rogue's roots stem directly from the Thief. The Rogue is not a friggin "Jack of all trades" any more than the Fighter is. And in general I [b]do[/b] distain the Arcane Archer for being a bow weilder with spells. Anything "...with spells" that is not by it's core concept a spellcaster is just kind of sad and pathetic. Which is probably why I re-build the Ranger without spells, and do my best to ignore and underplay the limited spells available to the Paladin. Well, this can depend a lot of how you present a race-specific PrC. The Dwarven Defender, for example, makes perfect sense as being a Dwarven-only PrC if you present it as being specifically tailored to utilizing the natural stature, build, and propensities of dwarves. Sure, any race should be able to have it's own Defender (although the Medium-size races don't have that same size-build difference between them), but if the [i]Dwarven[/i] Defender's moves, tactics, and general training maximizes the utility of the Dwarf's physical attributes, it makes sense that only they'd benefit from it to the extent of Being a Dwarven Defender. And in general, I just don't understand this whole "Stop complaining if it's messed up, just re-build it" trend. Sure I enjoy crafting mechanics and creating all sorts of things for D&D, but if I have to re-build something I found in a book (that I presumably bought to be able to use it's contents), then my opinion is that the book was badly written unless the book in question was tailored to be specifically intended for a particular campaign setting. In which case it only makes sense that if I'm not running/playing that setting that some re-tooling is going to be needed. [/QUOTE]

Verification