Search results

I still prefer a more spontaneous/sorcerer-type of casting. In the olden days, "preparing" a spell was called "memorizing", and it didn't make sense to me for a mage to "forget" a spell once it's cast. It makes more sense to have a bunch of spells "memorized", but to be limited to a certain...

I've played them all.. I find myself favoring BECMI for its simplicity and old-school-ness; and it seems a much more polished and complete product than B/X. I like 3.x multiclassing, but find the feats system and prestige classes are out of control, and Pathfinder is the same with a Lot of...

I believe the original "gish" was the elf "class"? So if 5e Does have a discrete class that combines weapons and spells, what restrictions should get put on armor? Or does the "gish" need to take an armored mage feat or some such?

I believe in 2e, specialists were called Mages and generalists were called Wizards (or vice-versa)? With regards to the priest/cleric split, it seems like the "priest" class would be the equivalent of the 4e Invoker?

I personally prefer a Sorcerer-type caster. Vancian magic wouldn't be so bad if there was also some sort of "at-will" ability (as much as I hate the 4e model). When I first played 1e, I remember being limited to one spell per day, and of course that one spell had to be "Read Magic", so a MU...

I stand corrected.. It was the case with BECMI. And honestly it makes sense.. gives a good reason to stay "just a fighter".

Personally I've never liked the barbarian as a class. It seems like it would be better as a kit, or a "theme" in 4e terms. A barbarian has to do with background more than anything. The "raging" feature, which seems to be the one true distinguishing feature, can easily be a "feat." Without...

I see the fighter as the true "weapons master" of all the classes. A fighter can focus on a weapon (or set of weapons) exclusively, in a way that a ranger, paladin, barbarian, etc. cannot. Paladins are busy with spiritual matters, and rangers with woodland lore. Barbarians aren't disciplined...

The problem with "differentiating" the paladin is that, whichever way you go, the class ends up seeming superfluous. If you remove spellcasting, you end up with a fighter with a few benies, something that can be accomplished with kits/themes/feats. If you add more "mystical" stuff, you get a...

So at what point is it justified to have an actual "class"? Hypothetically we could have 2 base classes, fighter (martial) and spellcaster, and all others would be multi-classes or themes/kits/whatever of the 2 base classes. If you think about it, every class could be generated this way. How...

I think this view is based on the assumption of 4e roles, level-pegging, etc. Yes, from a 4e perspective, a fighter and a paladin could be virtually interchangeable.. but almost all the classes are interchangeable, especially classes within a given "role". A paladin is a fighter at core.. so...

The original paladin (from Greyhawk supplement) didn't have any spellcasting abilities. He was a fighter with Lay on Hands (healing), better saves, immunity to disease, detect evil, and Dispel Evil at 8th level. I think spellcasting was added in 1e to keep up with the original ranger. Would...

Hmm.. but you can create a "non-magical" ranger easily with feats, skills, and themes, so why do you need an entire class for that? Of course, I think the same about a "warlord". Curious.. how is a bard's relationship to a Wizard akin to a paladin's relationship to a cleric? Historically, a...

So where would Aragorn (arguably the "model ranger") fit into all this? He wasn't particularly known for his use of the bow, or of "two-handed fighting." Yes, he was great in the wild, and was an amazing tracker. He had some herbalist healing ability, which got ramped-up into full blown "lay...

I kinda liked how they did the "hybrid" classes in BECMI. Paladins (and Avengers - Not the same as in 4e) progressed as fighters until they hit "name level"; then they gained the casting and turning abilities of a cleric of 1/3 level (rounded down). I personally would start this at level 1...

Looking over the history of the Ranger class.. In the original Strategic Review article (and 1e), the Ranger was a fighter with some (relatively) minor druid spells, a few Magic User spells as well, tracking, and bonuses when fighting a "giant class" monster. Starting in 2e, the class shifted a...

So how would that work mechanically? Take a racial template, a class template, a theme template, with all the attendant feats, skills, etc., mix them all together and that's your character? Would there still be room for individual choice, or would we be back in 4e-land?

And how would that differentiate the "samurai cleric" from a regular one? Wouldn't a soldier-turned-cleric be a multiclass (or in AD&D terms, dual-classed) character? I can sort of see this working if it was limited to "kits" for certain classes; but the idea of cross-class "themes" just...

But I've read some posts that seem to refer "theme" as something beyond/besides "class." Evidently you could have "samurai" fighters, clerics, mages, etc. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Can someone please explain to me the concept of "themes", as different from "classes"? I am not much of a 4e-guy, so I probably am not on the same plane (pun not intended); but it seems to me that this is a needless complication. On my other thread, I've suggested that classes could be...