Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="slobo777" data-source="post: 5987428" data-attributes="member: 6694877">I didn't even spot that in the OP . . . Why? Because the first thing I do when looking at a class is throw out all the fluff and think of what *my* background for the character would be. In the swordsage example, all I need say (as DM or player when Swordsage and Warrior are sat at the same table) - the training was different - while the warrior is a battle veteran and won tournament after tournament, the swordsage practiced deep meditation and ritualistic katas . . . Which I guess gets to a &quot;dealbreaker&quot;* for me - if any of these classes has fluff and mechanics tied up so much that I have to use the book fluff for the class my character belongs to, then unless they've hit my exact desires for the character directly, I'll enjoy the game less.* Not really a dealbreaker, but it would be annoying</blockquote>

[QUOTE="slobo777, post: 5987428, member: 6694877"] I didn't even spot that in the OP . . . Why? Because the first thing I do when looking at a class is throw out all the fluff and think of what *my* background for the character would be. In the swordsage example, all I need say (as DM or player when Swordsage and Warrior are sat at the same table) - the training was [I]different[/I] - while the warrior is a battle veteran and won tournament after tournament, the swordsage practiced deep meditation and ritualistic katas . . . Which I guess gets to a "dealbreaker"* for me - if any of these classes has fluff and mechanics tied up so much that I have to use the book fluff for the class my character belongs to, then unless they've hit my exact desires for the character directly, I'll enjoy the game less. * Not really a dealbreaker, but it would be annoying [/QUOTE]

Verification