Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jasin" data-source="post: 7674146" data-attributes="member: 7531">It makes me think the point of the design was more the mechanical exercise of creating a one size fits all adventurer class, than the thematic concern of catering to the masked vigilante character type.Apparently, Jason Bulmahn, who designed the vigilante, also designed the factotum in 3E's Dungeonscape, but I think the factotum is a better thematic wrapping for the basic mechanical concept: if you really want to design a class that breaks out of the usual strictures of a class-based game, &quot;it's a versatile adventurer&quot; seems a better and more direct explanation than &quot;it's a masked vigilante&quot;. Also, I prefer that a factotum character will be a jack of all trades, which is arguably a niche of its own, while a vigilante character is just as locked into his specialization as a fighter or a wizard.It seems strange to subvert the class system by designing a class whose main thing is &quot;with this class, you can be any class!&quot; and then subvert that subversion with &quot;... but once you choose, you're actually that one class, as usual&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jasin, post: 7674146, member: 7531"] It makes me think the point of the design was more the mechanical exercise of creating a one size fits all adventurer class, than the thematic concern of catering to the masked vigilante character type. Apparently, Jason Bulmahn, who designed the vigilante, also designed the factotum in 3E's Dungeonscape, but I think the factotum is a better thematic wrapping for the basic mechanical concept: if you really want to design a class that breaks out of the usual strictures of a class-based game, "it's a versatile adventurer" seems a better and more direct explanation than "it's a masked vigilante". Also, I prefer that a factotum character will be a jack of all trades, which is arguably a niche of its own, while a vigilante character is just as locked into his specialization as a fighter or a wizard. It seems strange to subvert the class system by designing a class whose main thing is "with this class, you can be any class!" and then subvert that subversion with "... but once you choose, you're actually that one class, as usual". [/QUOTE]

Verification