Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 3908409" data-attributes="member: 29398">My only concern with the names is that they'll not inherently describe what they do.&nbsp; That said, I also hope there's *some* flavour in them...Calling a feat the &quot;Swallowtail Sweep Kick&quot; is fine; it's a colourful name that also gives an idea what it does.Calling the same feat &quot;The Swallowtail Manoeuver&quot; is utterly pointless.As for restricted abilities and not every class being able to do everything...I'm all for it!&nbsp; If your character can do everything then what do you need the rest of the party for?&nbsp; I'd rather see characters have useful class-based strengths and severe class-based weaknesses...putting together a collection of different strengths via a *party* of varying classes serves to cover over the weaknesses, and the whole should add to a bit more than the sum of the parts.&nbsp; This ties into my dislike of multiclassing; it's so often used to build (and the very existence of *that* term irks me) a character that can do a bit of everything and is a one-person party.The 2-weapon example used earlier is a poor one, I think, in that anyone should be able to pick up 2 weapons and try to fight with them, at varying penalties based on dex. and with a higher-than-usual chance of fumbling; but if you're a particular class (fighter, post-Drizzt ranger) and do so your penalties are reduced.Jack-of-all-trade characters = pet peeve of mine. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 3908409, member: 29398"] My only concern with the names is that they'll not inherently describe what they do. That said, I also hope there's *some* flavour in them... Calling a feat the "Swallowtail Sweep Kick" is fine; it's a colourful name that also gives an idea what it does. Calling the same feat "The Swallowtail Manoeuver" is utterly pointless. As for restricted abilities and not every class being able to do everything...I'm all for it! If your character can do everything then what do you need the rest of the party for? I'd rather see characters have useful class-based strengths and severe class-based weaknesses...putting together a collection of different strengths via a *party* of varying classes serves to cover over the weaknesses, and the whole should add to a bit more than the sum of the parts. This ties into my dislike of multiclassing; it's so often used to build (and the very existence of *that* term irks me) a character that can do a bit of everything and is a one-person party. The 2-weapon example used earlier is a poor one, I think, in that anyone should be able to pick up 2 weapons and try to fight with them, at varying penalties based on dex. and with a higher-than-usual chance of fumbling; but if you're a particular class (fighter, post-Drizzt ranger) and do so your penalties are reduced. Jack-of-all-trade characters = pet peeve of mine. :) Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification