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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KDLadage" data-source="post: 46785" data-attributes="member: 88">It is, of cource, your right to disagree... but I think I can argue that:... a Druid is a nature Priest (cleric)... a Ranger and a Paladin are Fighter/Cleric types... a Barbarian is an uncivilized/specialized fighterand so on.I feel that if the core classes had been written in such a way as to handle the flexibility of various visions of the classes more easilly, then a lot of the arguments about various classes would tend to melt away.For example:What are the real differences between a Fighter with the Track Feat (and a couple of levels of Druid) and the Ranger? Should all Tracking specialists be able to cast spells? Should all nature oriented fighters be versed in two-weapon fighting?Think about this for a second. Once you have a good idea of what I am saying, then ask yourself this:What does it mean for a character to be a multi-classed Ranger/Fighter? How about a Cleric/Druid?These situations place the class system in a light that (I believe) highlights the weaknesses of the class system. And by this, I mean in ways that did not have to be true.You say that by eliminating (as core classes) the Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger and by combining the Cleric and Druid into a single class with multiple possible foci that I am pigeon-holing character concepts, when I feel quite the opposiet! I am freenig these concepts to be explored in more ways than the book dictates that it will be followed!If I made the fighter class and defined it in a way that, through some fairly interesting uses of feats, skills and multiclassing, I could simulate the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin and the Ranger -- as well as all of the meriad shades of grey that exist between them -- how is this pigeonholing?</blockquote>

Verification