Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4065874" data-attributes="member: 59082">Thanks for the replies. I can understand the reasons stated, but I still don't think it is such a big deal--or it is a big deal only if &quot;canon&quot; really matters to you and your game group (and if it does, maybe it shouldn't?).I see any rulebook as more of a GUIDEbook rather than cannot-be-broken-LAWbook. If it isn't in the core, just make it up yourself. This is not to say that I don't think WotC's tactics sneaky. And predictable.As an aside, this issue does point to what I see as an intrinsic weakness in the D&amp;D rules format, where classes are more of distinct archetypes rather than flexible professions and/or culture-profession combo templates. An example of this would be the notion that without a barbarian class one cannot play a &quot;barbarian&quot;--which is really a combination of a culture and a profession. In other words, a &quot;barbarian&quot; is (or should be, imo) a culture-specific fighter not a class unto itself. If I had my way, the core rules would account for this and thus be customizable to any class type. You'd have the basic classes of fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric, and then countless template variations--perhaps based upon cultural types like barbarian, urban, desert, woodland, etc.&nbsp; If you had four core classes and, say, ten core cultures you could have 40 variations of classes...all in the PHB. But I digress...And let's face it, the distinct class structure of D&amp;D sells books.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 4065874, member: 59082"] Thanks for the replies. I can understand the reasons stated, but I still don't think it is such a big deal--or it is a big deal only if "canon" really matters to you and your game group (and if it does, maybe it shouldn't?). I see any rulebook as more of a GUIDEbook rather than cannot-be-broken-LAWbook. If it isn't in the core, just make it up yourself. This is not to say that I don't think WotC's tactics sneaky. And predictable. As an aside, this issue does point to what I see as an intrinsic weakness in the D&D rules format, where classes are more of distinct archetypes rather than flexible professions and/or culture-profession combo templates. An example of this would be the notion that without a barbarian class one cannot play a "barbarian"--which is really a combination of a culture and a profession. In other words, a "barbarian" is (or should be, imo) a culture-specific fighter not a class unto itself. If I had my way, the core rules would account for this and thus be customizable to any class type. You'd have the basic classes of fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric, and then countless template variations--perhaps based upon cultural types like barbarian, urban, desert, woodland, etc. If you had four core classes and, say, ten core cultures you could have 40 variations of classes...all in the PHB. But I digress... And let's face it, the distinct class structure of D&D sells books. [/QUOTE]

Verification