Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 6687241" data-attributes="member: 63508">Not really. I'm asking the question if it was a good thing or not. I say no.But you just like you said:&quot;Personally, I like the Champion and Battlemaster and am concerned that going too far on the evocative would limit options...&quot;Someone else could say:&quot;Personally, I like the &quot;GENERIC SIMPLE ROGUISH ARCHETYPE&quot; and &quot;GENERIC COMPLEX ROGUISH ARCHETYPE&quot; and am concerned that going too far on the evocative would limit options...&quot;Why is GENERIC FIGHTER SUBCLASS good but&nbsp; GENERIC ROGUE ( as well as GENERIC WIZARD &amp; GENERIC CLERIC) bad?Some have said GENERIC ROGUE SUBCLASS is the Thief. I counter with the thieving tool focus and the Use Magic Device being both too much D&amp;D tropes of thieves to be generic.Personally I want the Thief to be the generic rogue. But the 5th edition Thief might have a wee too much baggage.And I love the idea of the Swashbuckler.And for the Alchemist, I was thinking the low to no magic Alchemist. I fear an Artificer alchemist would be too magicky first and not have enough planting bombs on structures and coating blades with oil (attack the face into blade flurry <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />)As for the thief being an acrobat... Pet Peeve time<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Athletics (Strength)<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Break Bonds</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Climb</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Jump</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Swim</li>
</ul></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Acrobatics (Dexterity)<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Balance</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tumble</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Escape form Bonds</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>The rogue-thief is an athlete... the rogue-thief is not an acrobat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 6687241, member: 63508"] Not really. I'm asking the question if it was a good thing or not. I say no. But you just like you said: "Personally, I like the Champion and Battlemaster and am concerned that going too far on the evocative would limit options..." Someone else could say: "Personally, I like the [FONT=Lucida Console]"GENERIC SIMPLE ROGUISH ARCHETYPE"[/FONT] and [FONT=Lucida Console]"GENERIC COMPLEX ROGUISH ARCHETYPE"[/FONT] and am concerned that going too far on the evocative would limit options..." Why is GENERIC FIGHTER SUBCLASS good but GENERIC ROGUE ( as well as GENERIC WIZARD & GENERIC CLERIC) bad? Some have said GENERIC ROGUE SUBCLASS is the Thief. I counter with the thieving tool focus and the Use Magic Device being both too much D&D tropes of thieves to be generic. Personally I want the Thief to be the generic rogue. But the 5th edition Thief might have a wee too much baggage. And I love the idea of the Swashbuckler. And for the Alchemist, I was thinking the low to no magic Alchemist. I fear an Artificer alchemist would be too magicky first and not have enough planting bombs on structures and coating blades with oil (attack the face into blade flurry :D) As for the thief being an acrobat... Pet Peeve time [LIST] [*]Athletics (Strength) [LIST] [*]Break Bonds [*]Climb [*]Jump [*]Swim [/LIST] [*]Acrobatics (Dexterity) [LIST] [*]Balance [*]Tumble [*]Escape form Bonds [/LIST] [/LIST] The rogue-thief is an athlete... the rogue-thief is not an acrobat. [/QUOTE]

Verification