Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tsyr" data-source="post: 1327490" data-attributes="member: 354">Were I designing it just for me, here is what I would have for base classes:Holy Warrior: A much more flexible version of the paladin, and alignment unrestricted. Your alignment would control the spells you had access to, as well as special abilities. Paladins would be LG ones, Chaos Knights CE, Blackguards LE, Knights of Order Lawful Neutral, etc. Eliminate the monk core class, but make an unarmed, unarmored fighter a viable option with the core class fighter. Also make it flexible enough to handle a swashbuckler type, or the juggernaught archtype, or the line-soldier type (Abilities for fighting with others), or the mounted warrior type, the berzerker, etc.Keep the bard, but make it more customizable... By swapping certain abilities for others, let it suit anything from a nordic skald to a jester to a sterotypical lute-playing bard.Make the rogue even more flexible with swapable abilities. So you could have a rogue that took the Tracking, Trapsetting, Survival, and Knowledge (Focus nature) packages to be a ranger/woodsman type, or a rogue that took the Petty Thievery, Breaking and Entry, Stealth, and Knowledge: Urban packages to be a typical theif, or a rogue that took Tracking, Trapsetting, Increased Combat Proficiency, and Increased Armor proficiency to make a bounty hunter, etc.Keep the ranger class as a combination Warrior/Druid. Enphasise that they are a combination Warrior/Druid more (Some more duidic ties to the land, etc). Let them have some control over how much of a druid and how much of a warrior they are, percentage wise.Playing into the "Let's have combination classes" theme, create a good fighter/mage core class. Because I'm not convinced a multiclass one can never work in a balanced fashion. Allow enough customization to let them play a warrior who dabbles in magic, a mage that dabbles in swordplay, or a nice combination.Keep the druid but change the name, I don't know to what exactly, but make it flexable enough to cover the woodlands witch, the druid, the shaman, etc as archtypes.Keep Wizards, but allow different types "Out of the Box"... a viable necromantic type wizard, a viable elementalist, etc. Obviously, a lot of this would be revamping the spell list.Dunno about sorcs at this point. Probably keep them and call them "Wild Mages" or something, which is sorta how I see them.</blockquote>

Verification