Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 9074915" data-attributes="member: 63508">Nope. It isn't. Fighter is its own problem.Nope. Another issue Rogues get reliable talent. But that's high level.But outside that. Not much.That's the problem.If you bleed the fighter, rogue, ranger, druid, monk, etc into each other AND have a comprehensive feat system AND always freeform multiclassing then classes become redundant.And no publisher will waste ink on obvious redundancy.So unless every class interacts with their shared elements in different unique ways, there is no need for them. And the desire for a composite class in a system with&nbsp; comprehensive feat, multiclassing, or some other customization system will never be fulfilled by a major publisher.If Druids are better naturalists, scouts, and survivalist than Rangers, Fighters are better warriors than Ranger, and Rogues are better sneaks than Rangers, there is no reason to have rangers both mechanically and narratively. Especially spell-less ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 9074915, member: 63508"] Nope. It isn't. Fighter is its own problem. Nope. Another issue Rogues get reliable talent. But that's high level. But outside that. Not much. [B]That's the problem.[/B] If you bleed the fighter, rogue, ranger, druid, monk, etc into each other AND have a comprehensive feat system AND always freeform multiclassing then classes become redundant. And no publisher will waste ink on obvious redundancy. So unless every class interacts with their shared elements in different unique ways, there is no need for them. And the desire for a composite class in a system with comprehensive feat, multiclassing, or some other customization system will never be fulfilled by a major publisher. If Druids are better naturalists, scouts, and survivalist than Rangers, Fighters are better warriors than Ranger, and Rogues are better sneaks than Rangers, there is no reason to have rangers both mechanically and narratively. Especially spell-less ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification