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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Abstruse" data-source="post: 5939325" data-attributes="member: 6669048">The reason where that line should be needs to be discussed is because it is being drawn. They've stated in I think the D&DXP talk that Avenger is going to be a theme rather than a class. That means that people who like the Avenger (like myself) aren't going to get it as a class. WotC doing that raises a very valid question, which is what is the line between a full-out class and just a specific build using other classes/themes? I'd really like to use these paladin/ranger discussions to discuss that question, but it's becoming a "But I like the paladin so it should stay because we all say so and I win and you lose!"Frankly, I started out playing devil's advocate. I don't like paladins or rangers. I like assassins and avengers. I tried to use assassins as an example because it's a class I know better and I'm attacking my own baby rather than a class others like that I don't. But the antagonistic stance of a lot of comments really pushed me into making statements in response that, after sleeping on, I regret making because they were made in reaction to that antagonistic stance rather than reflective of my own opinions. Putting in the paladin class isn't going to be a make-or-break for me. It's not my preference and not what I want for the core rules (and that extends to any class other than the core four), but it's not going to stop me from buying or playing the game when it comes out if they are included. But it's important to remember that me not wanting paladins and rangers in the game as classes is trivial compared to the designers of the game not wanting avengers as classes. My opinion means next to nothing, just one more voice in the cacophony that is Next discussions. The developers, though, are the ones that are making the game. Imagine for a moment that I did have power and decided that paladin shouldn't be a class and think about how that would make you feel. That's how I feel when they say that the avenger isn't going to be a class (though probably to a lesser degree because I can see the logic behind it and the avenger doesn't have nearly the roots that the paladin or ranger have in the game's history).The line between a class and a theme/build has to be drawn somewhere because it is being drawn. The time to discuss that question is right now, as other classes besides the cleric/wizard/fighter/rogue start to be introduced. Right now, they're focusing on the iconic classes that have been core in pretty much every edition of D&D. But how long until they start doing warlords, sorcerers, warlocks, avengers, monks, samurai, assassins, cavaliers, etc. etc.? We really need to talk about this so we understand why that line is being drawn where it is and, more importantly, so that Wizards of the Coast knows that we're thinking about that line.</blockquote>

Verification