Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marshall" data-source="post: 6244966" data-attributes="member: 765">So you want a base level of competency in all pillars and your only objection here is you dont like the thief being a striker. You're stuck on the name and cant see past the concept to the idea that a skilled non-combatant is NOT a rogue. You're trying to play some form of what 4e calls a leader with a criminal background and cramming the Rogue class into it. This is the POINT of having well defined roles. So you can pick a class thats designed to do what you want.So....irrelevant encounters that do nothing to advance the story and probably dont even cost the party resources... How is this an improvement? Heck, how is this playable?Nope, hyper-specialization into only one pillar is bad design. You're either going to be radically overpowered in the one pillar or its not going to be worth the trade off of being useless in the other two pillars....or this in an example of one of those encounters that takes more than 5-10 minutes and the Druid is taking 20 on his CHA check to play on the Barons superstitions and fears, maybe using other party members ideas to make the Baron nervous....Really, this is an ideal skill challenge that should end up with the party Face laying the evidence at the Barons feet and daring him to deny it.</blockquote>