Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scars Unseen" data-source="post: 4660625" data-attributes="member: 10196">That is one way of looking at it.On the other hand, if you want to stick to WotC material(and I'm assuming you do if you are squeamish about writing a build into the existing framework) then you should realize that your solution to #1 is a short term solution.&nbsp; Eventually WotC is going to cover many different character concepts, and if they stick to their roles, that means class glut.&nbsp; There is going to be a certain amount of that in any case, but when you have two roles with similar themes(look at how similar yet different Spatula's suggestion was to mine) you are going to have pointless separation.&nbsp; The only reason that the classes are tied into a single role is because WotC said so.&nbsp; That's fine for the RPGA, but in your own group you are allowed to house rule away anything that doesn't make sense for your group.&nbsp; The existence of coherent roles makes sense to me, but ironclad association with classes does not when you already have a system for division within the classes for different themes.By the way, #1 and #3 aren't as different situations as you make them out to be.&nbsp; As I pointed out before, If you wanted to be lazy about it you could simply take the exploits from another class and change the fluff and applicable attributes for each power.&nbsp; That would actually work out better than your suggestion since my concept of a duelist has no need for the ranger fighting styles or prime shot, and mark fits the concept better than hunter's quarry.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scars Unseen, post: 4660625, member: 10196"] That is one way of looking at it. On the other hand, if you want to stick to WotC material(and I'm assuming you do if you are squeamish about writing a build into the existing framework) then you should realize that your solution to #1 is a short term solution. Eventually WotC is going to cover many different character concepts, and if they stick to their roles, that means class glut. There is going to be a certain amount of that in any case, but when you have two roles with similar themes(look at how similar yet different Spatula's suggestion was to mine) you are going to have pointless separation. The only reason that the classes are tied into a single role is because WotC said so. That's fine for the RPGA, but in your own group you are allowed to house rule away anything that doesn't make sense for your group. The existence of coherent roles makes sense to me, but ironclad association with classes does not when you already have a system for division within the classes for different themes. By the way, #1 and #3 aren't as different situations as you make them out to be. As I pointed out before, If you wanted to be lazy about it you could simply take the exploits from another class and change the fluff and applicable attributes for each power. That would actually work out better than your suggestion since my concept of a duelist has no need for the ranger fighting styles or prime shot, and mark fits the concept better than hunter's quarry. [/QUOTE]

Verification