JRRNeiklot
First Post
I should have voted ranger. I love the ranger, but detest what the ranger has become.
Vyvyan Basterd said:I have no problem with assassins existing as characters in a D&D game. I just see no reason why Assassin should be a class instead of a profession that any class can choose.
Why not remove the baggage, or put it into the "themes" (whatever they are)?
I'm actually starting to wonder if the fighter's versatility/broadness isn't at the core of the "min/maxing" problem, the "feat tax" problem, . That is, in attempting to differentiate the fighters by giving them proficiencies or feats, you end up giving the other classes similar options. You also end up creating stacks of proficiencies/feats that are harder to balance or avoid broken combos. That leads you to invent feat taxes and penalty feats.
Maybe, just like a universal list was a bad idea for skills, a universal list of feats is a bad idea as well. Perhaps each class should have a limited set of swappable features for the advanced version, and a preselected list of features for the basic version. If you want your Swashbuckler to get a bit better at ranged weapons, maybe you should take a few levels of Ranger or Archer, instead of just grabbing a feat or two.
I have no problem with assassins existing as characters in a D&D game. I just see no reason why Assassin should be a class instead of a profession that any class can choose.
I'd support this idea, although I think I'd prefer "very capable" to "hyper capable."
I think that'd be a good idea to rethink most of the core classes.* I would personally think about sticking Ranger and Paladin into themes. But what if you don't want any of the developed themes? That presents a problem. What if you want to further specialize into a Ranger who does two-weapon fighting? That's a lot of specificity, and that means a lot of moving parts into the game's class/theme structure. I also wonder whether it's a good idea to have Ranger and Paladin as themes when you might want say, a Ranger who's an exiled king, just as a for example. It's really hard for me to see how this would work out in a way that people would enjoy.
* The problem with doing so, assuming the goal was basically providing logical ways to develop a character from general to specific, what you'd end up with wouldn't be satisfying to people who are attached to the idiosyncracies of the D&D classes. "I'm want to play a Ranger!" carries a lot of weight with people, even though it's just nomenclature. And it kind of reveals how tied up into typical fantasy ideas D&D is (and... kind of has to be, for everyone at the table to be on the same page).
No, it has to be hyper capable, nothing less. At least, it has to become hypercapable by high levels. If you're going to have a game where the casters can fly around, teleport, create planes of existence, raise undead armies, bring back the dead, etc...
...The guy whose class feature is to swing his sword around better be able to create category 5 hurricanes from doing so and be able to parry spells with the ease of which a normal person bats away a fly.
Sorry, but anything less is simply unacceptable.
I've never really understood how a class devoted to mental powers and mind over matter (both internally and externally) wasn't suitable for fantasy. Clearly a lot of people feel that it isn't, but I kind of have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.