Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5976138" data-attributes="member: 6688937">While I know that there were plenty of folks hoping for an &quot;Illusionist&quot; theme, I never bought it. If you compare the themes from the playtest with what you'd need to do to make an illusionist out of a wizard...themes just don't carry the right kind of mechanical weight for that. You'd still want to be able to have an Illusionist-healer, frex.Personally, I like the idea that rogues have schemes, wizards have traditions, clerics have spheres(?), fighters have styles(?), etc. It would get rid of a lot of repetition amongst the classes, which would be a good thing, IMO. Especially in splat material, where it would help eliminate the need (and thus temptation to alter) the basic core of the classes. I know some would object, but I'm really not sure why &quot;I want to be able to play an X.&quot; implies &quot;X must be its own class.&quot; If&nbsp; &quot;traditional&quot; barbarian = Fighter class + Barbarian background + Berserker theme, that seems totally acceptable to me. Double that sentiment for Assassins, Acrobats, Specialist Wizards, Druids, etc. (I'd love to put Bards in there, too, but they are so weird compared to rogues.) Agreed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 5976138, member: 6688937"] While I know that there were plenty of folks hoping for an "Illusionist" theme, I never bought it. If you compare the themes from the playtest with what you'd need to do to make an illusionist out of a wizard...themes just don't carry the right kind of mechanical weight for that. You'd still want to be able to have an Illusionist-healer, frex. Personally, I like the idea that rogues have schemes, wizards have traditions, clerics have spheres(?), fighters have styles(?), etc. It would get rid of a lot of repetition amongst the classes, which would be a good thing, IMO. Especially in splat material, where it would help eliminate the need (and thus temptation to alter) the basic core of the classes. I know some would object, but I'm really not sure why "I want to be able to play an X." implies "X must be its own class." If "traditional" barbarian = Fighter class + Barbarian background + Berserker theme, that seems totally acceptable to me. Double that sentiment for Assassins, Acrobats, Specialist Wizards, Druids, etc. (I'd love to put Bards in there, too, but they are so weird compared to rogues.) Agreed. [/QUOTE]

Verification