Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6763358" data-attributes="member: 6786252">I am not okay with someone taking paladin levels without swearing a sacred oath.&nbsp;&nbsp; I am okay with someone following the Purple Dragon Knight subclass as part a bandit leader instead of a knight.&nbsp; I am not okay with someone trying to be a wizard without a spellbook.&nbsp; I am okay with someone using a rogue to model an alchemist.&nbsp; I'm okay with non-elf bladesingers (its an eldritch knight from the wizard instead of fighter side).A while back, someone tried to explain that they had a concept for a &quot;monk&quot; that used holy rages to fly into battle and attack the enemies, modeled through the Barbarian class.&nbsp; I'm okay with this, especially since I feel like that is exactly what the Totem Barbarian is attempting to acomplish.&nbsp; I find it rather amusing that there's any discussion over the concept, considering that's something I think the Barbarian class is meant to cover in the first place, no refluffing required.&nbsp; The only part of barbarian the concept doesn't fully jive with is that barbarians are traditionally associated with being dismissive of civilization (which is odd, because civilization makes the alcohol that barbarians are usually fond of as well).In general, I consider classes to be archetypes.&nbsp; There's lots of variations you can achieve with those archetypes, especially if you're allowing deliberate subversion of the archetype.&nbsp; I don't like completely throwing out the archetype all together.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephista, post: 6763358, member: 6786252"] I am not okay with someone taking paladin levels without swearing a sacred oath. I am okay with someone following the Purple Dragon Knight subclass as part a bandit leader instead of a knight. I am not okay with someone trying to be a wizard without a spellbook. I am okay with someone using a rogue to model an alchemist. I'm okay with non-elf bladesingers (its an eldritch knight from the wizard instead of fighter side). A while back, someone tried to explain that they had a concept for a "monk" that used holy rages to fly into battle and attack the enemies, modeled through the Barbarian class. I'm okay with this, especially since I feel like that is exactly what the Totem Barbarian is attempting to acomplish. I find it rather amusing that there's any discussion over the concept, considering that's something I think the Barbarian class is meant to cover in the first place, no refluffing required. The only part of barbarian the concept doesn't fully jive with is that barbarians are traditionally associated with being dismissive of civilization (which is odd, because civilization makes the alcohol that barbarians are usually fond of as well). In general, I consider classes to be archetypes. There's lots of variations you can achieve with those archetypes, especially if you're allowing deliberate subversion of the archetype. I don't like completely throwing out the archetype all together. [/QUOTE]

Verification