What throws me is the inconsistency to which spellcasting classes work. It doesn't make learning any one class harder, because you haven't encountered others, but it does make learning them all a lot harder.
Intelligence Casters don't work the same, even though they should 100% be all about using a spellbook (or similar), collecting spells, writing them down, then prepping them at the start of the day.
Wisdom Casters don't work the same. 2/3rds of them are divine casters, and then Ranger works like an Intelligence Caster. Their flavour is more to do with prepping for any adventure, so they have stuff memorized, but can't learn anything new without forgetting like a dumb Pokémon... when Wisdom Casters should be Divine Casters in general with their full spell list given to them, and they pick what they prey for that day. If that kicks Ranger out of Wisdom and sucks Paladin out of Charisma, that's fine.
Lastly, Charisma casters don't work the same. Either they are gifted magic, or they cast it through force of will and personality... so if they know a few spells and rarely change them, that makes sense... but Paladins don't work that way.
Suffice it to say, I agree with the OP, but for different reasons.
My only hesitation to allow a modest degree of spell-switching is how it affects wizards. Wizards are built more around spells available than any other class, and letting them just swap stuff out really undercuts how their spellcasting works. It would take away the importance behind choosing spells as they level as well as the impact of finding spellbooks. Why ever pay to copy Cool Situational Spell A when you can just go to sleep and get it for free?
But it is RAW for Wizards:
You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.
You’re talking “spells prepared,” they’re talking “spells known.” It is absolutely not RAW for a Wizard to delete unwanted spells from their Spellbooks and replace them with different spells whenever they finish a long rest.
Ah my mistake. Yes, there are those rules about doing the study and taking notes bit where they get bonus for their school.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Has anyone played a ranger as a full prepared caster? I have. It was way too good, in my opinion. The ranger spell list can do so much, and making them focus on a few choices works well with the rest of the class and chosen subclass. Divine casters (clerics and paladins) have a lot of redundancies on their spell lists, spells that do the sam as other spells just in slightly different ways, so preparation is necessary for functionality. Druids are kind of built on being a great caster with their spell list full of diversity and flexibility, it's what sets them apart from the cleric. Rangers have a lot going on to begin with and their spell casting is meant to strengthen and build on top of the other features.
One other thing to think about is ability score placement. o a fairly high degree, clerics and paladins are geared towards melee combat in addition to their divine spellcasting. That puts strength (paladins more so than clerics) and constitution as strong front runners for their ability scores and ASIs. Much of the rest of their classes also depend on their spell save DC, so both classes are rally torn at very level up. Ranger have this issue almost not at all. Few ranger spells even require a spell save DC saving throw. So they are free to pump dexterity for offense and defense. Also, with dexterity (attacking, saving throw, initiative, AC, stealth, etc.) and wisdom (perception, insight, and all of the main ranger survival skills). Especially dexterity, because that puts rangers in the top tier list of "going first in combat" most of the time, like rogues, monks, and to some degree, bards.
Has anyone played a ranger as a full prepared caster? I have. It was way too good, in my opinion. The ranger spell list can do so much, and making them focus on a few choices works well with the rest of the class and chosen subclass. Divine casters (clerics and paladins) have a lot of redundancies on their spell lists, spells that do the sam as other spells just in slightly different ways, so preparation is necessary for functionality. Druids are kind of built on being a great caster with their spell list full of diversity and flexibility, it's what sets them apart from the cleric. Rangers have a lot going on to begin with and their spell casting is meant to strengthen and build on top of the other features.
One other thing to think about is ability score placement. o a fairly high degree, clerics and paladins are geared towards melee combat in addition to their divine spellcasting. That puts strength (paladins more so than clerics) and constitution as strong front runners for their ability scores and ASIs. Much of the rest of their classes also depend on their spell save DC, so both classes are rally torn at very level up. Ranger have this issue almost not at all. Few ranger spells even require a spell save DC saving throw. So they are free to pump dexterity for offense and defense. Also, with dexterity (attacking, saving throw, initiative, AC, stealth, etc.) and wisdom (perception, insight, and all of the main ranger survival skills). Especially dexterity, because that puts rangers in the top tier list of "going first in combat" most of the time, like rogues, monks, and to some degree, bards.
We did it and it was fine as they know so few it hardly matters. The interesting thing I found was only 1-2 spells actually changed a day and they kept the same 2-3 every day (Hunters mark, Pass without trace, Healing Spirit, and Conjure animals)
This was more of a thing prior to Tasha's though as the new Primeval feature with the extra spells known was a huge hit in addition to the spells known from the Xanthar's subclasses made it less of an issue.
Overall we all found it fun as they got to try more spells out.
The ranger in my game is a prepared caster with half her level plus her wisdom modifier spells to prepare, plus the always-prepared spells from the new Tasha's optional feature, and we have not found it to be even a little bit OP.
Druids are kind of built on being a great caster with their spell list full of diversity and flexibility, it's what sets them apart from the cleric.
People want to see this same relationship between paladin and ranger. A ranger is supposed to be diverse and flexible and above all useful. Yes, those spells build on other features but so do the paladin's (as well as the artificer for that matter which is also swimming in features). Having foresight and preparing the correct tools for a situation feels very "ranger" to me. The diversity of their spell pool is not actually a benefit unless they can utilize it. Right now the primary purpose it serves is to make different rangers feel different.
It feeling different from the other half casters and how people tend to end up using the same spells anyway, I've found that to be the case with druids, clerics, and paladins, especially paladins, I guess I haven't experienced or witnessed this as an issue yet. It being the limited known spells as an issue. For all of you has this been more of a want than a need?
It feeling different from the other half casters and how people tend to end up using the same spells anyway, I've found that to be the case with druids, clerics, and paladins, especially paladins, I guess I haven't experienced or witnessed this as an issue yet. It being the limited known spells as an issue. For all of you has this been more of a want than a need?
The major difference there is that they all have more resources to use in addition to spells so that varies up the playstyle more IMO than with ranger.
Paladins/Clerics get channel divinity that resets on a short rest....so you get subclass specific effects that changes with subclass choice.
Druids get Wild Shape and increasingly different ways to use it (Wildfire, Star, Spore druids having good examples)
Rangers subclasses offer some of this but its mostly a passive effect or a small change in how they operate in combat mostly. The subclasses that tend to do better with this is the XGtE ones that get extra spells known as it gives them some additional stuff to play around with out having to sacrifice a spell known. The subclasses that do not have this suffer more as they are much more hamstrung with spell choice than clerics, druids, and paladins as they can at least swap them out per day in addition to these other fun features.
Personally, I don't belive Rangers should get any spells. They're more akin to rogues than they are to Druids in my opinion. But then again, I don't believe Wizards should be allowed to use bladed weapons beyond daggers too. I personally believe there's too much focus on allowing characters to do what other classes can do which is watering the classes down too much.. I liked it better when classes were more specialized, which made the players feel more integral to the team.
What's the point of having a rogue (for example) when everyone in the party can check for traps? Sure he has a better chance of success initially.. but does he really? When you add up everyone elses chance to succeed.. it far outweighs his.. thus making him worth less to the party.
Personally, I don't belive Rangers should get any spells. They're more akin to rogues than they are to Druids in my opinion. But then again, I don't believe Wizards should be allowed to use bladed weapons beyond daggers too. I personally believe there's too much focus on allowing characters to do what other classes can do which is watering the classes down too much.. I liked it better when classes were more specialized, which made the players feel more integral to the team.
What's the point of having a rogue (for example) when everyone in the party can check for traps? Sure he has a better chance of success initially.. but does he really? When you add up everyone elses chance to succeed.. it far outweighs his.. thus making him worth less to the party.
Maybe I'm just old school like that.
I think the main difference is that a Rogue gets the option to use their Expertise specifically with Thieve's tools, which makes them better at dealing with traps. Although Artificers get automatic expertise with all tools eventually, so I guess your point still stands...
Personally, I don't belive Rangers should get any spells. They're more akin to rogues than they are to Druids in my opinion. But then again, I don't believe Wizards should be allowed to use bladed weapons beyond daggers too. I personally believe there's too much focus on allowing characters to do what other classes can do which is watering the classes down too much.. I liked it better when classes were more specialized, which made the players feel more integral to the team.
What's the point of having a rogue (for example) when everyone in the party can check for traps? Sure he has a better chance of success initially.. but does he really? When you add up everyone elses chance to succeed.. it far outweighs his.. thus making him worth less to the party.
Maybe I'm just old school like that.
Idunno if "old school" is the right term, since D&D rangers have literally always gotten spells ever since their introduction in 1975. I'm not gonna touch the rest of that, since it's not relevant to this thread.
Regardless of that fact there's still a cross over effect I feel shouldn't be there. As a point of fact, I don't ever remember rangers being played in any of our games specifically for that reason back in the day. The rest of my comments though do still have some bearing on the thread, because they further explain in some detail why I think the crossover effect of player classes goes beyond just rangers.
Regardless of that fact there's still a cross over effect I feel shouldn't be there. As a point of fact, I don't ever remember rangers being played in any of our games specifically for that reason back in the day. The rest of my comments though do still have some bearing on the thread, because they further explain in some detail why I think the crossover effect of player classes goes beyond just rangers.
....which is not related to rangers being prepared casters. I would agree with others to say its firmly off-topic.
Regardless of that fact there's still a cross over effect I feel shouldn't be there. As a point of fact, I don't ever remember rangers being played in any of our games specifically for that reason back in the day. The rest of my comments though do still have some bearing on the thread, because they further explain in some detail why I think the crossover effect of player classes goes beyond just rangers.
I agree with you. The idea of everyone having the ability to do everything is insane. And not outside the scope of this thread.
Or, and I am sure there will be an uproar, Paladins and Clerics should select spells like Rangers, Bards, Warlocks, and Sorcerers.
Rebalancing the classes, 132 subclasses, hundreds of magic items, game mechanics, 56 species, does not mean expanding all to the most potent. It also does not mean lowering all to the lowest common denominator. Somewhere in between is needed.
But scope creep in the game has reached scope leap levels.
I would far prefer to get rid of prepared casting.
I actually like the idea of taking Prepared Casting away from Clerics and Paladins... Clerics are OP enough... They're only slightly less potent as utility casters as Wizards, they innately get Medium Armor and Shields (which they can also use as their Spellcasting focus), and they have a really amazing spell list, made even more devastating by their ability to pick and choose the spells they want each day.
I've mentioned before in this thread, that I like the idea of Rangers getting access to Prepared Casting, since it represents their versatility and survivability, and I think leaving it on Druids would help them to stand out compared to Clerics beyond just the ability to turn into a squirrel 3 or 4 times a day.
Artificer, with its prepared spellcasting, is more what I would think of for Rangers as well. Both classes are a sort of utlity half-caster, but Artificers are more versatile despite having a smaller spell list just because they can customize their spells each day. Maybe it's balanced out by Rangers being a more dedicated martial class...
What's the point of having a rogue (for example) when everyone in the party can check for traps? Sure he has a better chance of success initially.. but does he really? When you add up everyone elses chance to succeed
You have a 100 percent chance of finding that pit trap if you just walk into it after failing your initial check
Any DM that allows the whole party to "check for traps" with no repercussions for failure might as well not have traps at all
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What's the point of having a rogue (for example) when everyone in the party can check for traps? Sure he has a better chance of success initially.. but does he really? When you add up everyone elses chance to succeed
You have a 100 percent chance of finding that pit trap if you just walk into it after failing your initial check
Any DM that allows the whole party to "check for traps" with no repercussions for failure might as well not have traps at all
I agree 100%. But I watched tons of parties get away with it. A lot of Dm's let exactly that happen. Which is why I don't think other members should have that ability. Finding traps should be strictly a rogue ability, just like I think spells should be left to spellcasters, and not melee classes.
I do however, make an exception for Palidins and Clerics because thats a "divine intervention" type of thing so to speak. But Rangers.. Rogues.. nah. It's just not their thing in my opinion.
I agree 100%. But I watched tons of parties get away with it. A lot of Dm's let exactly that happen. Which is why I don't think other members should have that ability. Finding traps should be strictly a rogue ability, just like I think spells should be left to spellcasters, and not melee classes.
Regardless of what you may think is the wrong or the right way of doing things during a game, I very strongly feel building arbitrary restrictions into the ruleset because otherwise "parties [might] get away with it" is a bad move. Why should only rogues be able to detect traps? Noticing something hinky is something anyone should be able to do. Never mind the poor rogueless party ending up in the maze of doom protecting the dark sorcerer's forbidding tower with a plethora of pitfalls...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Why should only rogues be able to detect traps? Because they're the only ones with that advanced level of training. It's a class thing. Wizards dont spend their time learning to arm and disarm traps. Rogues do. It's their specialty. Rogues see the little things others dont. Take this example.. throw out the pit traps.. that's too easy.
Your party walks up on a chest, now sure, anyone can just look at it.. but it's the highly trained rogue who's going to catch the little things that clue him into the trap because he knows what he's looking for. Not all traps are obvious. And realistically, if you take a party into a dungeon unprepared to check for traps, especially advanced mechanical traps, well then sorry, you deserve what you get. It's not up to the Dm to hand everything to everyone.
As a Dm, I strongly feel that it's up to the party to prepare themselves for what they must face. If they don't take a rogue, and they set off every trap, that's their fault. Not mine. As a house rule, I just refuse to water down my classes to allow them to be able to do things that other classes have specialized training in.
In past games I've run, when a party was walking into a situation where traps were likely, if they didn't have a rogue, they simply hired one, or they ate the traps.
But to keep this on topic, I stand by my opinion. I don't think ANY class should have access to the specialties of other classes, unless of course they are multiclassed. If you're going to do that (allow everyone to have trap detection ability) , you may as well just do away with classes all together, and just let everyone do everything. It just makes no sense to me. Just because I know first aid doesn't mean I can conduct advanced surgery. To each their own though.. that's the beauty of the game.
What throws me is the inconsistency to which spellcasting classes work. It doesn't make learning any one class harder, because you haven't encountered others, but it does make learning them all a lot harder.
Intelligence Casters don't work the same, even though they should 100% be all about using a spellbook (or similar), collecting spells, writing them down, then prepping them at the start of the day.
Wisdom Casters don't work the same. 2/3rds of them are divine casters, and then Ranger works like an Intelligence Caster. Their flavour is more to do with prepping for any adventure, so they have stuff memorized, but can't learn anything new without forgetting like a dumb Pokémon... when Wisdom Casters should be Divine Casters in general with their full spell list given to them, and they pick what they prey for that day. If that kicks Ranger out of Wisdom and sucks Paladin out of Charisma, that's fine.
Lastly, Charisma casters don't work the same. Either they are gifted magic, or they cast it through force of will and personality... so if they know a few spells and rarely change them, that makes sense... but Paladins don't work that way.
Suffice it to say, I agree with the OP, but for different reasons.
Ah my mistake. Yes, there are those rules about doing the study and taking notes bit where they get bonus for their school.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Has anyone played a ranger as a full prepared caster? I have. It was way too good, in my opinion. The ranger spell list can do so much, and making them focus on a few choices works well with the rest of the class and chosen subclass. Divine casters (clerics and paladins) have a lot of redundancies on their spell lists, spells that do the sam as other spells just in slightly different ways, so preparation is necessary for functionality. Druids are kind of built on being a great caster with their spell list full of diversity and flexibility, it's what sets them apart from the cleric. Rangers have a lot going on to begin with and their spell casting is meant to strengthen and build on top of the other features.
One other thing to think about is ability score placement. o a fairly high degree, clerics and paladins are geared towards melee combat in addition to their divine spellcasting. That puts strength (paladins more so than clerics) and constitution as strong front runners for their ability scores and ASIs. Much of the rest of their classes also depend on their spell save DC, so both classes are rally torn at very level up. Ranger have this issue almost not at all. Few ranger spells even require a spell save DC saving throw. So they are free to pump dexterity for offense and defense. Also, with dexterity (attacking, saving throw, initiative, AC, stealth, etc.) and wisdom (perception, insight, and all of the main ranger survival skills). Especially dexterity, because that puts rangers in the top tier list of "going first in combat" most of the time, like rogues, monks, and to some degree, bards.
We did it and it was fine as they know so few it hardly matters. The interesting thing I found was only 1-2 spells actually changed a day and they kept the same 2-3 every day (Hunters mark, Pass without trace, Healing Spirit, and Conjure animals)
This was more of a thing prior to Tasha's though as the new Primeval feature with the extra spells known was a huge hit in addition to the spells known from the Xanthar's subclasses made it less of an issue.
Overall we all found it fun as they got to try more spells out.
The ranger in my game is a prepared caster with half her level plus her wisdom modifier spells to prepare, plus the always-prepared spells from the new Tasha's optional feature, and we have not found it to be even a little bit OP.
People want to see this same relationship between paladin and ranger. A ranger is supposed to be diverse and flexible and above all useful. Yes, those spells build on other features but so do the paladin's (as well as the artificer for that matter which is also swimming in features). Having foresight and preparing the correct tools for a situation feels very "ranger" to me. The diversity of their spell pool is not actually a benefit unless they can utilize it. Right now the primary purpose it serves is to make different rangers feel different.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It feeling different from the other half casters and how people tend to end up using the same spells anyway, I've found that to be the case with druids, clerics, and paladins, especially paladins, I guess I haven't experienced or witnessed this as an issue yet. It being the limited known spells as an issue. For all of you has this been more of a want than a need?
The major difference there is that they all have more resources to use in addition to spells so that varies up the playstyle more IMO than with ranger.
Paladins/Clerics get channel divinity that resets on a short rest....so you get subclass specific effects that changes with subclass choice.
Druids get Wild Shape and increasingly different ways to use it (Wildfire, Star, Spore druids having good examples)
Rangers subclasses offer some of this but its mostly a passive effect or a small change in how they operate in combat mostly. The subclasses that tend to do better with this is the XGtE ones that get extra spells known as it gives them some additional stuff to play around with out having to sacrifice a spell known. The subclasses that do not have this suffer more as they are much more hamstrung with spell choice than clerics, druids, and paladins as they can at least swap them out per day in addition to these other fun features.
Personally, I don't belive Rangers should get any spells. They're more akin to rogues than they are to Druids in my opinion. But then again, I don't believe Wizards should be allowed to use bladed weapons beyond daggers too. I personally believe there's too much focus on allowing characters to do what other classes can do which is watering the classes down too much.. I liked it better when classes were more specialized, which made the players feel more integral to the team.
What's the point of having a rogue (for example) when everyone in the party can check for traps? Sure he has a better chance of success initially.. but does he really? When you add up everyone elses chance to succeed.. it far outweighs his.. thus making him worth less to the party.
Maybe I'm just old school like that.
I think the main difference is that a Rogue gets the option to use their Expertise specifically with Thieve's tools, which makes them better at dealing with traps. Although Artificers get automatic expertise with all tools eventually, so I guess your point still stands...
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Idunno if "old school" is the right term, since D&D rangers have literally always gotten spells ever since their introduction in 1975. I'm not gonna touch the rest of that, since it's not relevant to this thread.
Regardless of that fact there's still a cross over effect I feel shouldn't be there. As a point of fact, I don't ever remember rangers being played in any of our games specifically for that reason back in the day. The rest of my comments though do still have some bearing on the thread, because they further explain in some detail why I think the crossover effect of player classes goes beyond just rangers.
....which is not related to rangers being prepared casters. I would agree with others to say its firmly off-topic.
I agree with you. The idea of everyone having the ability to do everything is insane. And not outside the scope of this thread.
I would far prefer to get rid of prepared casting.
I actually like the idea of taking Prepared Casting away from Clerics and Paladins... Clerics are OP enough... They're only slightly less potent as utility casters as Wizards, they innately get Medium Armor and Shields (which they can also use as their Spellcasting focus), and they have a really amazing spell list, made even more devastating by their ability to pick and choose the spells they want each day.
I've mentioned before in this thread, that I like the idea of Rangers getting access to Prepared Casting, since it represents their versatility and survivability, and I think leaving it on Druids would help them to stand out compared to Clerics beyond just the ability to turn into a squirrel 3 or 4 times a day.
Artificer, with its prepared spellcasting, is more what I would think of for Rangers as well. Both classes are a sort of utlity half-caster, but Artificers are more versatile despite having a smaller spell list just because they can customize their spells each day. Maybe it's balanced out by Rangers being a more dedicated martial class...
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
You have a 100 percent chance of finding that pit trap if you just walk into it after failing your initial check
Any DM that allows the whole party to "check for traps" with no repercussions for failure might as well not have traps at all
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I agree 100%. But I watched tons of parties get away with it. A lot of Dm's let exactly that happen. Which is why I don't think other members should have that ability. Finding traps should be strictly a rogue ability, just like I think spells should be left to spellcasters, and not melee classes.
I do however, make an exception for Palidins and Clerics because thats a "divine intervention" type of thing so to speak. But Rangers.. Rogues.. nah. It's just not their thing in my opinion.
Regardless of what you may think is the wrong or the right way of doing things during a game, I very strongly feel building arbitrary restrictions into the ruleset because otherwise "parties [might] get away with it" is a bad move. Why should only rogues be able to detect traps? Noticing something hinky is something anyone should be able to do. Never mind the poor rogueless party ending up in the maze of doom protecting the dark sorcerer's forbidding tower with a plethora of pitfalls...
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Why should only rogues be able to detect traps? Because they're the only ones with that advanced level of training. It's a class thing. Wizards dont spend their time learning to arm and disarm traps. Rogues do. It's their specialty. Rogues see the little things others dont. Take this example.. throw out the pit traps.. that's too easy.
Your party walks up on a chest, now sure, anyone can just look at it.. but it's the highly trained rogue who's going to catch the little things that clue him into the trap because he knows what he's looking for. Not all traps are obvious. And realistically, if you take a party into a dungeon unprepared to check for traps, especially advanced mechanical traps, well then sorry, you deserve what you get. It's not up to the Dm to hand everything to everyone.
As a Dm, I strongly feel that it's up to the party to prepare themselves for what they must face. If they don't take a rogue, and they set off every trap, that's their fault. Not mine. As a house rule, I just refuse to water down my classes to allow them to be able to do things that other classes have specialized training in.
In past games I've run, when a party was walking into a situation where traps were likely, if they didn't have a rogue, they simply hired one, or they ate the traps.
But to keep this on topic, I stand by my opinion. I don't think ANY class should have access to the specialties of other classes, unless of course they are multiclassed. If you're going to do that (allow everyone to have trap detection ability) , you may as well just do away with classes all together, and just let everyone do everything. It just makes no sense to me. Just because I know first aid doesn't mean I can conduct advanced surgery. To each their own though.. that's the beauty of the game.