Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bret" data-source="post: 819297" data-attributes="member: 713">The skills that a Barbarian gets are so different than a Bard's, that it is extremely difficult to make a sensible comparision.If the skills list is similiar to what is was in 3e, then the Bard and Rogue lists are very close. In many cases, the skill sets overlap.The roleplay aspects depend on what a particular character is good at. You need the mechanics to back up the roleplay.As for the archtypes, they have just taken a step backwards with the Rogue. With these changes, the Rogue's main advantage is as a THIEF.The 3e flavor text says: "Some are stealthy thieves. Others are silver-tongued tricksters. Still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs. What they share is versatility, adaptability, and resourcefulness."It looks like at least some of these have now shifted to the Bard or Ranger. The Ranger makes a better scout or thug. The tricksters, infiltrators, and diplomats are better handled by the Bard.We are left with Spies and Theives. I leave spies on the Rogue list because of the Forgery skill, if that turns out to be a class skill for Bards in 3.5 then they would take that niche over as well.I focus on the mechanical differences in the classes because that is the best way I've found of building a character in DnD. Ignore the class names and look at what the skills and abilities are of the various classes. Given a character concept, what class or combination of classes comes the closest?The thing I'm seeing is that the archtypes are changing with this revision, and changes in the rules are likely to completely change how you try to achieve a particular character concept. Given the same concept, you would build the character differently under 3e than 3.5e.I'm really not sure that qualifies as backwards compatible.Guess I'll find out in a few months, when I look over the SRD and this forum to see what has changed.</blockquote>

Verification