Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="VannATLC" data-source="post: 4203768" data-attributes="member: 60935">Another case were it would be nice if the existing archetypes would be dropped for less flavourful, more meaningful names.This is partially a cross post. I've not read most of this thread, as I already agree with the OP, for the most part. What is missing. from the mechanics so far, is the ability to be 50/50.Personally, I'm ok with that missing. It shouldn't, IMO, work, anyway. Its too ineffectual.WRT my original statement, however..Martial Defender (Not 'fighter')Divine Defender (Not 'paladin')Stealthy Melee Striker (Not 'rogue')Specialist Melee Striker  (Not 'ranger')Arcane Striker (Not 'warlock')Arcane Controller (not 'wizard')Divine Leader (Not 'cleric')Martial Leader (Not 'warlord')Due to (Intelligent, IMO) way that  WOTC have structured the classes, we have a fairly large amount of character flexibility.Unfortunately, they persisted in holding onto names that have a large amount of history, and while I understand their reasons, it was still, IMO, a poor decision, as it locks the fluff behind fantasy archetypes into the combat archetype.. which need not be similiar at all.Things like the Barbarian/Berzerker comments above only demonstrate how serious a problem this is.For one, the class definately should have been called Berzerker, under the 3.5 system. I suspect it was politics/history that caused this, personally.Lastly, somebody who can enter a rage is rare. They don't make up whole villages, for instance. A bloodlust is self destructive.Even better, once you seperate the concept of the role away from the fantasy archetype, you can successfully create Berzerkers like Rhodry Maelwaedd.A high-born lord, charismatic, intelligent and personable, who was a berzerker on the field of battle.</blockquote>

Verification