Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Abstruse" data-source="post: 5940317" data-attributes="member: 6669048">That's a lazy answer though. If they're just going to do that, why not just make AC ascending and get rid of to-hit tables and reprint the 1st Ed books? Or just buy out Basic Fantasy or one of the other OSR systems?This is a playtest and everything's still in flux. They're working out the kinks. If there's nothing unique about the class, what's the point of having it? If the rogue is effectively the same as the assassin, why do we need both classes? It just takes up a page count that's not needed and causes decision freezing amongst new players. &quot;I want to play someone sneaky who stabs people in the back...should I play an assassin or a rogue? They look the same except for a few tiny differences. This one has a d8 hit die, but this one gets a higher to-hit bonus, but this one gets an extra skill, but this one gets an extra bonus to hiding...&quot; And they sit there for half an hour going back and forth and being unable to make up their mind. And once they do choose, they spend the entire game saying &quot;I bet this wouldn't be happening to me if I'd chosen the other class instead...&quot;It makes for a less satisfying game, it's bad game design, and it's simply pandering to grognards. We should not encourage this by being complacent. If they can't make an assassin (or paladin or ranger or monk or barbarian or samurai or whatever) class that adds something to the game, we should call them out on it and let them know we don't like it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Abstruse, post: 5940317, member: 6669048"] That's a lazy answer though. If they're just going to do that, why not just make AC ascending and get rid of to-hit tables and reprint the 1st Ed books? Or just buy out Basic Fantasy or one of the other OSR systems? This is a playtest and everything's still in flux. They're working out the kinks. If there's nothing unique about the class, what's the point of having it? If the rogue is effectively the same as the assassin, why do we need both classes? It just takes up a page count that's not needed and causes decision freezing amongst new players. "I want to play someone sneaky who stabs people in the back...should I play an assassin or a rogue? They look the same except for a few tiny differences. This one has a d8 hit die, but this one gets a higher to-hit bonus, but this one gets an extra skill, but this one gets an extra bonus to hiding..." And they sit there for half an hour going back and forth and being unable to make up their mind. And once they do choose, they spend the entire game saying "I bet this wouldn't be happening to me if I'd chosen the other class instead..." It makes for a less satisfying game, it's bad game design, and it's simply pandering to grognards. We should not encourage this by being complacent. If they can't make an assassin (or paladin or ranger or monk or barbarian or samurai or whatever) class that adds something to the game, we should call them out on it and let them know we don't like it. [/QUOTE]

Verification