Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5990061" data-attributes="member: 95493">I wouldn't. I don't want to have to pick out a dozen little details to make one simple character. A fighter is a fighter, a paladin a paladin. I do not need different themes and backgrounds to define one as the other.We already know Themes and Backgrounds are optional. If I want to play a character of nearly any class and not have to use an optional system I am completely out of luck. Not to mention wanting to play a simple Fighter. Not a Fighter (Templar) [slayer] {crusader} or whatever YOU think a fighter is to be a fighter. That is just with a simple class; not including the arguably more complex one of MONK which is what this thread is about.I would be wholly surprised if the WotC design team produces a product with just 4 classes. I would be stunned and amazed. If I had any money I'd be willing to put it down to say that it wasn't going to happen.Can we all agree that WotC IS NOT going to abandon all classes except the core four and move on? Well they aren't going to replace druid with a cleric. They might make a nature-y cleric but they won't replace the druid class with a subclass of cleric. I say this not because I don't think they are close (I don't but that isn't why I'm saying it), I am saying it because WHICH druid do they choose to be a cleric? I do agree with the rest of the campaign specific clerics stuff, they have said that much.Here is something else I hope that is optional, but hasn't been said to be optional so far. However, if I understand what CS looks like right now, isn't it more of a system meant to give fighters more options relating to combat maneuvers? I mean it is supposed to be able to protect them if they stand in a doorway and get wailed on but it doesn't seem to cover them using sword and board vs. greatsword vs. 2 daggers vs. charging on a horse. I may have missed something if it does. CS seemed to be more of a combat system to give them options as opposed to defining how they fight in the first place. For example, CS wouldn't define the armor they are wearing or their proficiencies, but it would be similar to being how well (or effectively) they do a trip attempt.It entirely depends on how they do "kits" but so far themes and backgrounds are capable and designed to give you minor changes between others of the same class. They AREN'T meant to replace an entire class. If you listed to the PA podcast <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2" target="_blank">#2</a>  you hear mearls talking about a cleric of shadow being able to sneak like a rogue, but he never says that a cleric of shadows IS a rogue. Nor is he saying a rogue is only limited to sneaking. That is what is at stake here. When you start defining a class as only one or two sets of things and say that another class can cover that so it is okay to remove that class then it is a slippery slope. At what point do you decide a rogue is a wizard because wizards can sneak better and have open/close or knock? At what point do you decide the fighter is a cleric because both stand on the front lines and get hit? (A point I believe I made back on page 1.)</blockquote>

Verification