Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7598212" data-attributes="member: 996">Yet you keep bringing up things that 4e did first or best?Besides, 4e is a vital part of the PF story.   It necessarily and intentionally is - it had to be, in order to be broadly familiar and acceptable to the established, vocal fan base. Yet it also needed to be accessible to the mainstream.That is the great accomplishment of 5e, in finding a compromise design that retains enough of D&D to keep the fans from hating on it, yet not so much that it's overwhelming the first time you're exposed.It's the same kind of magic formula Marvel finally found with its movies. You just brought up 4e, again, because it was the ONLY edition of D&D to eliminate LFQW, and the first WotC version to make NPC prep a breeze.(Though, to the latter point, it would be fairer and more accurate to say that 3.x was the ONLY ed of D&D to make NPC generation a DM nightmare.) From 3e, 5e has made some improvements, some steps back, and a great many compromises - It's different from 3e/PF, but I find it hard to say that one is definitely better than the other.  When I play 5e, I find myself missing the wealth of options in 3e, when I even contemplate running 3e instead of 5e, I shudder.  Yet you dont want to consider the only D&D ed with formal support for such roles? The primacy of magic is another serious stumbling block for a viable non-magic using rogue class.It's not for nothing that all but the 4e Rogue had some access to magic: The TSR rogue could use spell scrolls, the 3e/PF Rogue could leverage Use Magic Device, and the 5e Rogue can opt to cast spells, outright. I cant agree. The thief always seemed a kludge.  The game had no skill system, so some skills were introduced as 'special abilities, of a new class, and it seemed like it had to be week in combat relative to the skilless fighter.Once 3.0 introduced a comprehensive skill system that subsumed those abilities, the rogue became redundant.The archetype of the opportunistic cunning hero is real enough, but it doesn't been to be broken out from other sorts of heroism for balance reasons. I think 3.0 had already done tgat a few years earlier, but i guess its not too important a point. Agreed. It's what D&D (cept 4e) has always been balanced arround. And yeah, not fun, so avoided, so not actually balanced. D&D has nothing else going for it but it's history. Agreed.Now that we have the Three Pillar concept, classes should be designed to work well in each pillar. it is and always has been, but nothing about RPG as a concept dictates that it must be. see above: the rogue has almost(4e again, sorry) always gotten some access to magic.</blockquote>

Verification