Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KDLadage" data-source="post: 46939" data-attributes="member: 88">I disagree. I think it could be much like the Spell Specializations of the Wizard class. I choose fighter, then I have teh option of selecting a specialization within that class that grants me some bonuses here and some restrictions there... viola!Also disagree with this point. But I will not dive into this argument, as I am one of those guys that place Monk as a class that makes no sense in a Western-Eurocentric campaign anyway. Monks should have been reserved as a (prestige) class in Oriental Adventures, if you ask me.Since I feel that the feats/disadvantages are a false argument, this no longer applies.Again, as I disagree witht he points that lead to this, I also disagree with your conclusions.Let me ask you, is the magic system lacking for the loss of the Illusionist as a seperate class from the Magic User (Wizard)? I do not think so.So why would it be any different to have the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin combined in the same way? Or the Cleric and the Druid?I agree. We need a variety of classes, and a variety of options within those classes lest the syndrome of "a fighter is a fighter is a fighter" once again become a truism. But yuo have Prestige Classes. Why not sue them to thier full potential?So many times, I have seen prestige classes used where they were not needed (they are, in effect) a multi-class combination. Other times, they become the "bag-o-ultimate-powers" trap.But, even though I like the class system (for the same reasons you list above) I think that some of the idea that went into the elimination of the seperate class of Illusionist could have been applied to the Fighter (and the various fighter variations) and Cleric (with the Druid). The Paladin (and perhaps even then the Ranger) should have been a Prestige Class. In fact, witht eh Code of Condect, it is in effect a Prestige Class with no prerequisites...I feel that through a model of 4 core classes and some basic rules for specializations within it, you have a lot of flexability to create many more types of characters than can be created now... but this is all just my thoughts.Do not get me wrong -- I like D&D; I like the new d20 system. I think these guys did a great job. But even Monte Cook has said that if it were just him, things might have been a lot different (not better, most likely worse). That is all I am suggesting here. If d20/D&D3e had been my little project, it would not look at all like it does now.There might be some very good, very valid reasons for teh core classes to be the way they are. I just don;t see it. And unless we talk about it, I doubt I ever will.As it is, I allow them all. Thay all work pretty well. I don't bitch about them too much. But the inner game designer in me wonders what it might have been had I been there to debate this with them while the game was being designed... <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification