Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 5611359" data-attributes="member: 529">I'm in agreement with Wheresmyd20, and I'll add that I think I prefer more layering systems&nbsp; like feats, backgrounds, builds, themes, skills, paragon paths,&nbsp; and epic destinies for greater customization of a fewer number of classes.I could get by in D&amp;D with a fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric, as long as I had ways to make them feel like rangers, paladins, assassins, etc. However, some archetypes are too important to rely on layers.&nbsp; In D&amp;D, I think the paladin rates its own class, just like there's got to be a Jedi class of some sort in a Star Wars game.&nbsp; Just because I could make a cleric or fighter into a paladin with layers doesn't mean it's the best solution.&nbsp; You could say the same for the ranger and assassin, and even the monk.&nbsp; They all have a lot of history in D&amp;D, and have been developed in lore and mechanics to be more than the weird niche classes that they started as.&nbsp; But without that history, I think you'd look at the assassin and monk and have the right to say &quot;why is this here?&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Couldn't this best be done with a fighter or rogue with some layering systems to customize them?&quot;The best classes are built with the genre and setting in mind to create the most important adventuring archetypes.&nbsp; But the better your layering systems, the fewer classes you need to support your game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gargoyle, post: 5611359, member: 529"] I'm in agreement with Wheresmyd20, and I'll add that I think I prefer more layering systems like feats, backgrounds, builds, themes, skills, paragon paths, and epic destinies for greater customization of a fewer number of classes. I could get by in D&D with a fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric, as long as I had ways to make them feel like rangers, paladins, assassins, etc. However, some archetypes are too important to rely on layers. In D&D, I think the paladin rates its own class, just like there's got to be a Jedi class of some sort in a Star Wars game. Just because I could make a cleric or fighter into a paladin with layers doesn't mean it's the best solution. You could say the same for the ranger and assassin, and even the monk. They all have a lot of history in D&D, and have been developed in lore and mechanics to be more than the weird niche classes that they started as. But without that history, I think you'd look at the assassin and monk and have the right to say "why is this here?" "Couldn't this best be done with a fighter or rogue with some layering systems to customize them?" The best classes are built with the genre and setting in mind to create the most important adventuring archetypes. But the better your layering systems, the fewer classes you need to support your game. [/QUOTE]

Verification