Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="drnuncheon" data-source="post: 1041433" data-attributes="member: 96">How many of those games actually make any distinction between 'the book-learning mage _and_ the "power of dragons" guy'?  Most of them only have one type of mage. Looking the shelf over...Ars Magica? It's all in the book larnin'.  Mage? You have to have the natural talent to even try it.  Exalted? Book larnin'.  Amber? Natural talent (well, walking the Pattern or the Logrus).  GURPS?  OK, I'll give you that one, it's loosely defined enough that you could do the magic either way.Of course, in GURPS, there is fundamentally no difference between the guy who does it by book larnin' and the guy who does it by natural talent - whereas in D&D, there is a fundamental difference between the two - and there's also one between Archery Guy, Greatsword Guy, and Horsey Guy, because they chose wildly different class abilities.The split may have been made because of game mechanics, but that doesn't make it a bad one - instead, it's part of the flavor of D&D.Did I say flavor? But aren't I arguing for 'flavorless' classes? Sure.  Because I think that fighter/magicuser is a fine flavor all by itself, and it doesn't necessarily need the Spellsword's 'twist of lymon' or the Bladesinger's 'real cheddar flavor'.  What it does need is to be concentrated, boiled down to the essentials - since to keep up with the other characters in the current rules, you'd need half again as many levels to be viable.Me? Hell no.  I've always hated the 'paladins ought to be just a fighter/cleric' argument.If you can't keep track of who you're arguing with, maybe you need a break?J</blockquote>

Verification