Thieves are just fighters who are good at stealth.
Clerics are just fighters who are good at holy magic.
Wizards are just fighters who are good at only magic.
They were all fighters from the start.
"But what about... the fighters?" They're fighters who are good at fighting. That's why they get to be called fighters.
Thieves are guys who can pick locks, identify and disarm traps, and make ballpark appraisals of anything you happen to find. Maybe they're good in a fight, but their best trait is getting you through a dungeon safely and allowing you to extract more value from the expedition.
Assassins are not warriors, they're assassins. They're not good at fighting, just killing. An assassin who has gotten into a straight up brawl with his target is a bad assassin. A good assassin's target doesn't know he's there until the knife is in his throat, the bullets in his head, or he's choking on poisoned wine.
>An assassin who has gotten into a straight up brawl with his target is a bad assassin.
That's my main gripe with the Assassin's Creed franchise, a problem that got worse and worse with each game: the excessive focus on combat at the detriment of stealth. You shouldn't be able to counterkill enough opponents to fully surround you. At best it should be >1 opponent = easy fight >2 opponents = difficult >3 opponents = maybe you can pull it off if you're really good at the game >4+ opponents = RUN
I could even see a case where 2+ opponents should be an unwinnable fight. That would really force you down the path of stealth.
Fricking this. I'm sick as frick of assassins just being fighters, but they're wearing leather "armor" and have a slightly long knife. I need more range assassins in my life. Give them short bows or slings, and they do the backstab but with an arrow.
That's the problem with classes, they are too rigid, simplicistic and often too specific
Irl there are a lot of overlaps between specializations and being specialized in one thing doesn't impede learning other stuff, and experienced humans often aren't onetrick ponies
> specialized in one thing doesn't impede learning other stuff, and experienced humans often aren't onetrick ponies
This isn't about realism, it's about game design. It's about breadth and overlap. If what player A can do overlaps too much with what player B can do we have a problem. If the abilities of player A and player B are broad enough to cover most, if not all situations that arise in a game we have a problem. These are problems that classes, as a game mechanic, generally tend to solve. If implemented correctly that is.
Every ability I use in my games is a fighter ability, including the ones that allow you to throw fireballs and shoot lightning.
Utility comes from further investment in an ability's growth.
no.
unless you are an anime moron where everything is just a pallet swapped gish with no distinguishing features besides what color lasers they shoot.
play osr
Arent you moronic for replying to a low effort single sentence shitpost thread?
Thieves are just fighters who are good at stealth.
Clerics are just fighters who are good at holy magic.
Wizards are just fighters who are good at only magic.
They were all fighters from the start.
"But what about... the fighters?" They're fighters who are good at fighting. That's why they get to be called fighters.
Isn't a fighter just a rogue who's good with weapons? "I attack its weak point for massive damage" is just called not being moronic
Thieves are guys who can pick locks, identify and disarm traps, and make ballpark appraisals of anything you happen to find. Maybe they're good in a fight, but their best trait is getting you through a dungeon safely and allowing you to extract more value from the expedition.
Assassins are not warriors, they're assassins. They're not good at fighting, just killing. An assassin who has gotten into a straight up brawl with his target is a bad assassin. A good assassin's target doesn't know he's there until the knife is in his throat, the bullets in his head, or he's choking on poisoned wine.
>An assassin who has gotten into a straight up brawl with his target is a bad assassin.
That's my main gripe with the Assassin's Creed franchise, a problem that got worse and worse with each game: the excessive focus on combat at the detriment of stealth. You shouldn't be able to counterkill enough opponents to fully surround you. At best it should be
>1 opponent = easy fight
>2 opponents = difficult
>3 opponents = maybe you can pull it off if you're really good at the game
>4+ opponents = RUN
I could even see a case where 2+ opponents should be an unwinnable fight. That would really force you down the path of stealth.
Fricking this. I'm sick as frick of assassins just being fighters, but they're wearing leather "armor" and have a slightly long knife. I need more range assassins in my life. Give them short bows or slings, and they do the backstab but with an arrow.
No, they're thieves and assassins. Keep up, anon.
No, Thieves are catburglars with a gimmick of not being seen. Assassins are good at takedowns but are useless in actual fights.
In another words, if you want to get into melee just pick Fighter.
In what contex? In what game?
Fricking nogames man.
Thieves are people who steal things.
Assassins are politically motivated murderers.
What's up with homosexuals on /tg/ seemingly always trying to shave things down like this is some game of minimalism?
That's the problem with classes, they are too rigid, simplicistic and often too specific
Irl there are a lot of overlaps between specializations and being specialized in one thing doesn't impede learning other stuff, and experienced humans often aren't onetrick ponies
> specialized in one thing doesn't impede learning other stuff, and experienced humans often aren't onetrick ponies
This isn't about realism, it's about game design. It's about breadth and overlap. If what player A can do overlaps too much with what player B can do we have a problem. If the abilities of player A and player B are broad enough to cover most, if not all situations that arise in a game we have a problem. These are problems that classes, as a game mechanic, generally tend to solve. If implemented correctly that is.
Every ability I use in my games is a fighter ability, including the ones that allow you to throw fireballs and shoot lightning.
Utility comes from further investment in an ability's growth.
Aren't wizards just people who picked a real class?
Anyone can be an assassin if you go out to specifically kill someone.
A thief/rogue is shit at fighting and only slightly less shit at opening locks which makes them better than anyone else at it.