Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6052581" data-attributes="member: 7006">This is the main crux of the entire matter and I think is the easiest for me to answer.We found out in 4E that class name matters to many people.  In many cases, moreso than the mechanics of the class.It's been said before... 4E was designed such that the mechanics to run an archer PC fell into the 'Ranger' class name.  You wanted to be an archer... you were supposed to use the Ranger mechanics.  If you didn't want to be a "nature" based archer, the game told you to just strip the Nature stuff out (heck, it even let you select Dungeoneering rather than Nature as the 'free skill' you got), and refluff it to whatever kind of archer you wanted.And many people HATED that.They wanted to play a 'Fighter' archer.  Not a 'Ranger'.  Not even a refluffed 'Ranger'.  A 'Fighter'.  One who was an archer.  And what made it doubly troubling was that a 4E 'Fighter' was actually a tank, and it was exceedingly difficult to make it anything other than a Defender tank.  And that pissed people off.  WotC assigned specific mechanics to specific classes, and folks went nuts.  Because they now could no longer choose for themselves what their Fighter did... it was hardwired into the game.And that is exactly what it looks like WotC is trying to fix with 5E.If WotC was to design the game such that if you wanted to play 'variant mechanics module X' you had to play some other class rather than the class you wanted to play (all in the effort of trying to establish some type of 'class identity')... they would be making 4E classes all over again.And we know exactly how well that went over with a large percentage of the population.</blockquote>

Verification