Non-Core Class Survivor: Round 16

Which class do you want to vote off the list?


  • Poll closed .
Barak said:
I don't really get the "step-stab" criticism given to the scout. By that token, the barbarian is a "rowr-charge-hack-hack-hack" class, then?
That's not a class ability, that's a feat choice. So no.

So.. They've found a way to make a class that works better by moving on the battlefield, foregoing extra attacks for one possibly big payoff. Why exactly is that a bad thing, again?
Because it's an idiotic nerf of the sneak attack for flavor reasons. It doesn't work well if you don't use miniatures, it strains credulity and it steals thunder from the already existant mechanics that reward nimble and mobile combatants, like Tumbling.

All the people claiming the Scout is a better ranger, because it doesn't have spells seem to feel that being a woodsman involves a combat technique modelled on the Electric Slide. Yeeeeah, not so much.

If someone in my campaign wanted to play the class, I'd just swap in Sneak Attack for Skirmish. (Same thing for the ninja, incidentally.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Whizbang Dustyboots said:
Because it's an idiotic nerf of the sneak attack for flavor reasons. It doesn't work well if you don't use miniatures, it strains credulity and it steals thunder from the already existant mechanics that reward nimble and mobile combatants, like Tumbling.

All the people claiming the Scout is a better ranger, because it doesn't have spells seem to feel that being a woodsman involves a combat technique modelled on the Electric Slide. Yeeeeah, not so much.
Man, what? We haven't played with minis for a while (baby in the GM's house), and it's never been a problem.

And people don't love the scout for skirmish, they love it because of the excellent skill points and great (and frequent) feat choices. Skirmish is just the cherry on the top.
 

Brian Gibbons said:
I could not disagree with this more.

I have given the psion the new players, and they did find it far simpler to deal with.

Spell points has a very simple metaphor: money. Spell points are magical money. Everyone understands money, and they can understand that their character has magical money that they cash in to buy spells; they can even understand that some spells are more expensive than others. Most people don't find it hard to understand that if they spend all their money on one spell, they won't have any left for others.

Spell slots, on the other hand, have no real-life metaphor. Each level of spell slot is effectively a separate resource, and you have to keep each one in mind. This is fine if you're strategically minded, but the lack of a simple metaphor makes it harder for people with little strategic sense to manage their character's resources.

In short, a single (large) resource that has a clear metaphor is simple for those who are not strategically minded to figure out how to use than one with multiple independent resources.
 


I voted Duskblade however I'm glad to see Psi-Warrior getting the boot. Psionics in DnD was only ever an excuse to make even more money when arcane and divine magics were already enough for the system.
 

Darmanicus said:
I voted Duskblade however I'm glad to see Psi-Warrior getting the boot. Psionics in DnD was only ever an excuse to make even more money when arcane and divine magics were already enough for the system.
Pretty sure the appendix in the 1E Players Handbook wasn't sold separately.
 

I wish that I could vote them all off for different reasons.

Scout : Skirmish for the reasons stated by others

Duskblade: We finallly get a gish class, but WOTC focuses it into the sword channeling schtick rather than giving players the freedom of choice to determine the direction to take the gish concept.

Warlock: Ok, Invocations are pretty cool. Unfortuantely, that is the only good thing. The fluff, alignment restrictions and even the ability to blast all day-no thanks.

Psychic Warrior: Sorry, I see this and think of the ninja version of psylocke. Then there is the DND psionics system...
 

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
Pretty sure the appendix in the 1E Players Handbook wasn't sold separately.

Yeah I'm sure it wasn't....being an appendix n all, (refrain from calling you a sarcy jerk), :confused:

What I'm saying is that psionics has always taken a bit of a back seat in DnD as far as I can see. When I started with 2nd ed, (sorry 'bout that), the only ref I got to psionics was an optional rule where if you rolled something like 99-100 on a, guess what, d100, you got a psionic power.

Just one other thing..........

What were the 4 core classes again? Yeah that's right, didn't think pscionist was one of 'em.
 

Remove ads

Top