Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GuardianLurker" data-source="post: 9283899" data-attributes="member: 786">I think you'd be better off running this as an &quot;awesome classes per edition&quot; series, and then running the winners against each other. For one thing, it will give you a much wider (and IMO, accurate) field to compete in. Artificer, for example is probably one of the more awesome classes in the 3.5 time frame. Ditto for the Tome of Battle classes. All are currently excluded from the field right now.Also, while I understand the desire to reduce the number of entries down, the lumping seems very arbitrary. (Why is the Knight worthy of separation from the Fighter, Paladin, or Cavalier, for instance?) Moreover, if the lumping happens, it'd seem more accurate to lump newer into older, not older into newer, as earlier versions of a concept are more likely to be broader/rougher/less defined than later. Avoiding these issues would seem to be another argument in favor of a series of race heats as well.Speaking to the arbitrariness, for instance, Beguiler is actually a Bard competitor, not an Illusionist one (at least as far as 3.5 goes). It pretty much shares the same relationship with Bard as the 1e Illusionist does with the 1e Magic-User. Another problem with the lumping is you run into the , &quot;I enjoy playing the concept, but this version of it sucked, but this other version is the most awesome class I've ever seen.&quot; problem. As an example, I feel that the 3.5 Warlock -despite its problems - is actually superior to the 5e version, and that's after having seen both in long-term play. Contrariwise, from everything I've heard, the 4e Warlord was vastly superior to its 3.5 version, the Marshall.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GuardianLurker, post: 9283899, member: 786"] I think you'd be better off running this as an "awesome classes per edition" series, and then running the winners against each other. For one thing, it will give you a much wider (and IMO, accurate) field to compete in. Artificer, for example is probably one of the more awesome classes in the 3.5 time frame. Ditto for the Tome of Battle classes. All are currently excluded from the field right now. Also, while I understand the desire to reduce the number of entries down, the lumping seems very arbitrary. (Why is the Knight worthy of separation from the Fighter, Paladin, or Cavalier, for instance?) Moreover, if the lumping happens, it'd seem more accurate to lump newer into older, not older into newer, as earlier versions of a concept are more likely to be broader/rougher/less defined than later. Avoiding these issues would seem to be another argument in favor of a series of race heats as well. Speaking to the arbitrariness, for instance, Beguiler is actually a Bard competitor, not an Illusionist one (at least as far as 3.5 goes). It pretty much shares the same relationship with Bard as the 1e Illusionist does with the 1e Magic-User. Another problem with the lumping is you run into the , "I enjoy playing the concept, but [I]this[/I] version of it sucked, but [I]this other[/I] version is the most awesome class I've ever seen." problem. As an example, I feel that the 3.5 Warlock -despite its problems - is actually superior to the 5e version, and that's after having seen both in long-term play. Contrariwise, from everything I've heard, the 4e Warlord was vastly superior to its 3.5 version, the Marshall. [/QUOTE]

Verification