Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Matthias" data-source="post: 6230180" data-attributes="member: 3625">When Pathfinder began adding things to the original 3E rules, I got used to most of them. The changes to skills (skill merging and point calculation) took me some time to get used to. I also thought initially that the Archetypes were just &quot;fluff&quot; and didn't really add anything to the game, but I got over that too.I wish I could say that the idea of &quot;hybrid classes&quot; in its current setup might grow on me too, where I gradually warm up to an unusual addition or alteration by embracing the positive development that it brings to the rules. But I simply can't contort my brain into seeing the positive side of this. I didn't like the idea that the &quot;alternate classes&quot; couldn't coexist with the classes they are meant to be mutually exclusive with, and now I simply can't accept the notion that not all base classes are created equal. ALL base (and core) classes should be combinable via multiclassing with every other base and core class, with the reasonable exception of classes that are incompatible due to philosophy/alignment conflicts (Paladin/Antipaladin, Barbarian/Monk, etc.)If someone wants to defend this design as being simply a matter of taste, that's fine, but I think I would have rather had these new classes be created as Archetypes. Perhaps they could take the form of &quot;fraternal twin&quot; archetypes, each applying to its own parent class, or maybe a single archetype that can apply to two classes once--e.g., trait X is offered as an exchange for trait A from class #1 OR trait B from class #2...if you happen to be a multiclass with both classes 1 and 2, you could pick which trait A or B to give up for trait X but you can't have X twice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Matthias, post: 6230180, member: 3625"] When Pathfinder began adding things to the original 3E rules, I got used to most of them. The changes to skills (skill merging and point calculation) took me some time to get used to. I also thought initially that the Archetypes were just "fluff" and didn't really add anything to the game, but I got over that too. I wish I could say that the idea of "hybrid classes" in its current setup might grow on me too, where I gradually warm up to an unusual addition or alteration by embracing the positive development that it brings to the rules. But I simply can't contort my brain into seeing the positive side of this. I didn't like the idea that the "alternate classes" couldn't coexist with the classes they are meant to be mutually exclusive with, and now I simply can't accept the notion that not all base classes are created equal. ALL base (and core) classes should be combinable via multiclassing with every other base and core class, with the reasonable exception of classes that are incompatible due to philosophy/alignment conflicts (Paladin/Antipaladin, Barbarian/Monk, etc.) If someone wants to defend this design as being simply a matter of taste, that's fine, but I think I would have rather had these new classes be created as Archetypes. Perhaps they could take the form of "fraternal twin" archetypes, each applying to its own parent class, or maybe a single archetype that can apply to two classes once--e.g., trait X is offered as an exchange for trait A from class #1 OR trait B from class #2...if you happen to be a multiclass with both classes 1 and 2, you could pick which trait A or B to give up for trait X but you can't have X twice. [/QUOTE]

Verification