Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6598831" data-attributes="member: 7006">See, I wouldn't even consider that a &quot;design failure&quot;.&nbsp; I personally see no reason why getting to level 20 in a particular class is the &quot;best&quot; or &quot;rightest&quot; way to play a character.&nbsp; A character's personality or who a character is comes out of how the character is played, not how it is built.&nbsp; So if you have a particular character you want to play storywise... however you choose to build it mechanically to me is completely fine.&nbsp; If that means taking some mechanics from the bard or sorcerer to make your character more &quot;warlocky&quot; in your opinion... then I say great!&nbsp; And if it means you have to wipe off the fluff of the bard or sorcerer to do so... to me that's absolutely fine as well.&nbsp; There are many different ways to build a character both storywise *and* mechanically, and no way is better or more pure than another.It's the same way someone might feel their &quot;ultimate ranger&quot; would be 20 levels of Champion fighter with the Outlander background.&nbsp; Is that bad design?&nbsp; Not from where I'm sitting.&nbsp; I've also tried making the case all the time that if the Battle Master fighter's specific maneuvers to choose from doesn't produce a &quot;warlord&quot; type of character you're looking for... take the War Cleric mechanics and wipe all the &quot;divine&quot; and &quot;magic&quot; fluff off of it and make your &quot;warlord&quot; that way.The game mechanics are just rules and numbers.&nbsp; There's no story that can't be wiped off of them.&nbsp; So once you figure out what your character's story is... take whatever mechanics you want as you go along that best exemplifies it.&nbsp; And never think you or the designers are &quot;doing it wrong&quot; by making that choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6598831, member: 7006"] See, I wouldn't even consider that a "design failure". I personally see no reason why getting to level 20 in a particular class is the "best" or "rightest" way to play a character. A character's personality or who a character is comes out of how the character is played, not how it is built. So if you have a particular character you want to play storywise... however you choose to build it mechanically to me is completely fine. If that means taking some mechanics from the bard or sorcerer to make your character more "warlocky" in your opinion... then I say great! And if it means you have to wipe off the fluff of the bard or sorcerer to do so... to me that's absolutely fine as well. There are many different ways to build a character both storywise *and* mechanically, and no way is better or more pure than another. It's the same way someone might feel their "ultimate ranger" would be 20 levels of Champion fighter with the Outlander background. Is that bad design? Not from where I'm sitting. I've also tried making the case all the time that if the Battle Master fighter's specific maneuvers to choose from doesn't produce a "warlord" type of character you're looking for... take the War Cleric mechanics and wipe all the "divine" and "magic" fluff off of it and make your "warlord" that way. The game mechanics are just rules and numbers. There's no story that can't be wiped off of them. So once you figure out what your character's story is... take whatever mechanics you want as you go along that best exemplifies it. And never think you or the designers are "doing it wrong" by making that choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification