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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 3592141" data-attributes="member: 38357">From my point of view (and based on my experiences), I think players may immediately complain about any of those options, they are more likely to complain because d) playing a Rogue is an enjoyable part of the game (which is likely to result from a combination of a, b, & c). I think part of my disagreement with your assertion is with your use of the term "sacred cow". The D&D classes are all really archetypes in their own right, and IMHO none of them exactly fits the fictional and/or historical archetypes that are suggested as examples for the classes. So from there it comes down to a question of: "Does the Rogue fall further from the out-of-game archetypes it is supposed to represent than other classes?", and I don't really feel that it does.I agree that Heracles is definitely an archetypal Fighter, and I don't know much about Arjuna. I can see a good argument for Boromir, but I would have have a hard time fitting his position as a PC with a straight Fighter. Achilles, Odysseus, and Beowulf I say definitely need something beyond just the Fighter class to represent them.Note that I'm not suggesting that the Fighter is a "sacred cow", or that it doesn't serve a very important place in the game, but I feel that the limitations placed on the class (in order to preserve play-balance and niche protection) are more of a problem for me in play than those of the Rogue.You have a point. However, I don't generally feel that the Fighter does a very good job at the traditional warrior archetype. I don't think that it's all about BAB and weapon proficiencies. Now Feats do go a long way twords dealing with this (and Fighters is definitely the class to go to for Feats), but there's a definite skew in Feats between the great ones and the ho-hum. If you ignore the normal restrictions on Fighter bonus feats and are willing to take things like Skill Focus or the +2 / +2 feats, I think you can do a good enough job of modeling most of these characters. Even better if you are willing to dip into other classes. But if you're going to start stretching things like that, I think it's only fair to look at alternate class features that could replace features of the Rogue that don't fit a particular concept. IME most really good / creative character concepts are best supported by multiclassing, and at that point you're more likely than not to have extra class features you don't really need...If you replace the Rogue with the Expert from UA, I'm certainly not going to complain. But at that point you really might as well adopt the whole Generic Classes system. Or throw out the class system altogether. As I said before I really see the D&D classes as archetypes in their own right; if that's what you want to play, then great. If some or all of those archetypes don't fit what you want to do (ie: are sacred cows), then you should replace them. But it's a decision that I think really needs to me made on a game by game basis. I don't think there's any way you can reasonably make a blanket statement that the game doesn't need X class...</blockquote>

Verification