Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SSquirrel" data-source="post: 4927275" data-attributes="member: 5202">This is not restricted to 4E.&nbsp; Classes throughout the history of D&amp;D have always been &quot;a touch of this class with a shade of this class and this new bit&quot;.&nbsp; A Paladin is, at its core, a cross between a fighter and a cleric.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's possible we could have these, but that means coming up with alternate ways to accomplish the prime role of the class.&nbsp; If you have a defender w/no mark, how does he hold the attention of the enemy and keep them from wanting to vent on your wizard?&nbsp; If he has no way of holding the enemy's attention then he doesn't fit the role.I guess I don't agree about blandness.&nbsp; I have no problem with the core classes being what they are.&nbsp; Are some of the newer classes different?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; Good for them.&nbsp; I don't feel a need to go back and change the base classes.&nbsp; Key word there is base.&nbsp; These are the core of any adventuring group.&nbsp; You don't have to have any of them in your group, but they fulfill many of the basic fantasy tropes.&nbsp; Some people will want a caster who goes along a more standard PHB progression for abilities and such, someone would rather play something like a Psion.&nbsp; Instituting more differences in the system as time goes on allows for people to get used to the 4E system and then branch out inside of it more as time goes on.&nbsp; Think about it like this.&nbsp; Most people in 2E and 3E would not recommend a wizard to a first time player, they would tell them to play a Warrior or Rogue.&nbsp; This is the same thing.&nbsp; Play one of the classes from the first PHB for a more basic approach to abilities and progression, look at the later books for more diversity.&nbsp; Seems right to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SSquirrel, post: 4927275, member: 5202"] This is not restricted to 4E. Classes throughout the history of D&D have always been "a touch of this class with a shade of this class and this new bit". A Paladin is, at its core, a cross between a fighter and a cleric. It's possible we could have these, but that means coming up with alternate ways to accomplish the prime role of the class. If you have a defender w/no mark, how does he hold the attention of the enemy and keep them from wanting to vent on your wizard? If he has no way of holding the enemy's attention then he doesn't fit the role. I guess I don't agree about blandness. I have no problem with the core classes being what they are. Are some of the newer classes different? Sure. Good for them. I don't feel a need to go back and change the base classes. Key word there is base. These are the core of any adventuring group. You don't have to have any of them in your group, but they fulfill many of the basic fantasy tropes. Some people will want a caster who goes along a more standard PHB progression for abilities and such, someone would rather play something like a Psion. Instituting more differences in the system as time goes on allows for people to get used to the 4E system and then branch out inside of it more as time goes on. Think about it like this. Most people in 2E and 3E would not recommend a wizard to a first time player, they would tell them to play a Warrior or Rogue. This is the same thing. Play one of the classes from the first PHB for a more basic approach to abilities and progression, look at the later books for more diversity. Seems right to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification