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: 5940545" data-attributes="member: 6669048">You're still asking "Is this needed?" when you do that because if you can't make a class unique, flavorful, and dynamic; then you don't need it as a class. And you can't have every class from every edition since they've already stated that some classes from previous editions will be themes (like avenger).I'll admit, a lot of the people who are asking "Is this needed?" are being literal. They don't like the class so they're trying to lobby to get it removed. However, there are also people asking that question like myself who are trying to approach the same question you are from the other end. Playing devil's advocate as it were. You suggest a way to do that class. I poke holes in it. You refine your suggestion. I poke holes in that. And we keep going until we either find the answers to those questions - how do we make the class unique, flavorful, and dynamic? - or we throw out that idea and start over with a different one. Or we come to the conclusion that the particular class in question can't be made in such a way without still retaining the archetypical feel of that class, and we come to a consensus that it can't work as a class under this rules system.That's the thought exercise. Look at the five themes we've seen so far. Extrapolate from them and from the various Q&As, website articles, and chats what themes are going to look like. Then see how many variations you can come up with for that class.Or approach it from the other side. Come up with as many different build ideas as you can for that class that stretch the definition as much as you can but still fit within that archetype. If a paladin is wearing leather armor and using a bow, is it still a paladin? If a ranger grew up in Waterdeep and can tell you about every square inch of it but doesn't know the first thing about trees other than they have leaves on them, is that still a ranger?When I'm sitting here arguing against all the stuff I see people saying about the ranger, paladin, and assassin; I'm specifically trying to push the discussion into examining what those classes are. And I extend that do every other class you can think of. Some of them are better served being a class. Some of them are better served being a theme (barbarian, for instance, all boils down to a character who goes all Hulk Smash a couple of times a day...that's a theme).Why does it matter? Because WotC is watching the various forums around the net to get an idea of what the discussion is. They're also sending out playtest surveys regularly. If they're sending out a survey and every response for keeping a class is "I like this class and we need it" and every response for moving it to a theme is well-reasoned with logical points, the latter is going to have more weight. The same thing applies for arguing that a class is needed because it fills this role in this capacity but can also be modified through choices to do this this and this for different build types while the other side is "this class sucks", the former is going to have more weight.So tell me...what is a ranger? What can you take away or change from the idea of "ranger" before it stops being a ranger? What can you add to it without straying away from what a ranger is?</blockquote>

Verification