Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ValhallaGH" data-source="post: 2901552" data-attributes="member: 41187">No, it's a choice made at character creation.&nbsp; Mercenary warrior, valiant knight, murderous thug and barbaric champion are all archetypes that many characters are built to resemble.&nbsp; Not everyone wants to play a warrior, just like not everyone wants to use magic.&nbsp; There's no stereotyping involved because I'm not assigning a method or requirement for the warriors, merely stating that it is as valid a character type as Akbar the Rug Merchant.I think everyone with levels in the class &quot;barbarian&quot; has got to fight.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because the class is a barbaric warrior who taps into his primal nature to be better at combat.&nbsp; If it's something else then it needs to have its class features completely changed (fast movement, HD, rage, uncanny dodge, DR and trap sense).By your logic, all Rogues are sneaks, lock pickers, and pick pockets.&nbsp; We both know that's not the case.&nbsp; That's why they get skill points, so they can choose which type of Rogue they want to be.&nbsp; I agree that they shouldn't get sneak attack for free (or am I the only to think this?) but instead should have it as an option they can select if it is appropriate for their individual character.How is this not hypocrisy?&nbsp; Rogue levels represent being a skillful character, not being a kidney-shoting murder.&nbsp; The two are not mutually exclusive but they are seperate choices.On the other hand, Fighter levels represent being a good combatant.&nbsp; (Let me know if you disagree.)As such, a Fighter should be automatically good in a fight, the same way a Rogue automatically gets a lot of skill or a Wizard automatically gets to be a powerful magic user.&nbsp; Anything else (such as your proposal) means that Fighter levels don't represent trying to become a good combatant.&nbsp; They might but they don't have to.&nbsp; Instead a 'Fighter' could take all of his new skill points and become a good rider that can scare the pants off of people but is completely useless in a fight.&nbsp; Now the class isn't what it claims to be, and you've violated the assuption of 'class as career'.But, you didn't.&nbsp; You just replied immediately without even considering everything I'd said and what it meant. :'(My advice is to pick up the World of Darkness 4th edition, or the Shadow Run 4th edition and start turning all their rules into a d20 basis.&nbsp; You'll get the desired results and have a road map for getting there.Edit: Oh, yeah!&nbsp; Good luck with it.&nbsp; I hope it turns out as good as you're hoping for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ValhallaGH, post: 2901552, member: 41187"] No, it's a choice made at character creation. Mercenary warrior, valiant knight, murderous thug and barbaric champion are all archetypes that many characters are built to resemble. Not everyone wants to play a warrior, just like not everyone wants to use magic. There's no stereotyping involved because I'm not assigning a method or requirement for the warriors, merely stating that it is as valid a character type as Akbar the Rug Merchant. I think everyone with levels in the class "barbarian" has got to fight. Why? Because the class is a barbaric warrior who taps into his primal nature to be better at combat. If it's something else then it needs to have its class features completely changed (fast movement, HD, rage, uncanny dodge, DR and trap sense). By your logic, all Rogues are sneaks, lock pickers, and pick pockets. We both know that's not the case. That's why they get skill points, so they can [i]choose[/i] which type of Rogue they want to be. I agree that they shouldn't get sneak attack for free (or am I the only to think this?) but instead should have it as an option they can select if it is appropriate for their individual character. How is this not hypocrisy? Rogue levels represent being a skillful character, not being a kidney-shoting murder. The two are not mutually exclusive but they are seperate choices. On the other hand, Fighter levels represent being a good combatant. (Let me know if you disagree.) As such, a Fighter should be automatically good in a fight, the same way a Rogue automatically gets a lot of skill or a Wizard automatically gets to be a powerful magic user. Anything else (such as your proposal) means that Fighter levels don't represent trying to become a good combatant. They might but they don't have to. Instead a 'Fighter' could take all of his new skill points and become a good rider that can scare the pants off of people but is completely useless in a fight. Now the class isn't what it claims to be, and you've violated the assuption of 'class as career'. But, you didn't. You just replied immediately without even considering everything I'd said and what it meant. :'( My advice is to pick up the World of Darkness 4th edition, or the Shadow Run 4th edition and start turning all their rules into a d20 basis. You'll get the desired results and have a road map for getting there. Edit: Oh, yeah! Good luck with it. I hope it turns out as good as you're hoping for. [/QUOTE]

Verification