Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EOL" data-source="post: 46975" data-attributes="member: 823">I think you dismiss the argument of increasing complexity (i.e. more feats, dis-ads, etc.) far too readily.&nbsp; You claim that the barbarian could be done as a fighter with certain feat choices.&nbsp; Okay you'd have to add a feat to simulate his increased movement, and a feat for his rage, and a disadvantage for his restrictions with heavy armor, not to mention a feat to increase his hit dice.&nbsp; You would also have to add rules for class skill selection.Alternatively you could make the barbarian a prestige class, but that presupposes that no one &quot;starts out&quot; as a barbarian.&nbsp; I think it would be more accurate to say most warriors start as barbarians and become fighters.This is just the barbarian a relatively simple class and already there is a substantial increase in feats.&nbsp; Lets take something like the sorcerer to get from a sorcerer to a mage you would have to have the spontaneous casting feat, available at first level.&nbsp; Is this balanced with other feats?&nbsp; Not in a million years, you would clearly then have to implement disadvantages (which they have within the class) to balance this out.&nbsp; Before you know it that one feat is a separate class (the road 3e took) or a bunch of modular disadvantages which could be built up to the sorcerer class.&nbsp; And don't even try and argue that the sorcerer should just be left out because a lot of people (myself included) really like the class, and I think 3e would be poorer without it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EOL, post: 46975, member: 823"] I think you dismiss the argument of increasing complexity (i.e. more feats, dis-ads, etc.) far too readily. You claim that the barbarian could be done as a fighter with certain feat choices. Okay you'd have to add a feat to simulate his increased movement, and a feat for his rage, and a disadvantage for his restrictions with heavy armor, not to mention a feat to increase his hit dice. You would also have to add rules for class skill selection. Alternatively you could make the barbarian a prestige class, but that presupposes that no one "starts out" as a barbarian. I think it would be more accurate to say most warriors start as barbarians and become fighters. This is just the barbarian a relatively simple class and already there is a substantial increase in feats. Lets take something like the sorcerer to get from a sorcerer to a mage you would have to have the spontaneous casting feat, available at first level. Is this balanced with other feats? Not in a million years, you would clearly then have to implement disadvantages (which they have within the class) to balance this out. Before you know it that one feat is a separate class (the road 3e took) or a bunch of modular disadvantages which could be built up to the sorcerer class. And don't even try and argue that the sorcerer should just be left out because a lot of people (myself included) really like the class, and I think 3e would be poorer without it. [/QUOTE]

Verification