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: 47046" data-attributes="member: 88">Please do not take this the wrong way, but it is obvious to me that you did nto read what I wrote (or, at most, skimmed it) and drew a rather odd conclusion.I will try this again, so read carefully:Back in the first edition days, we have a Wizard and an Illusionist. Right now, we have a Wizard class and within this class is the Illusionist, the Conjurer, the Necromancer and so on... eight seperate specialized classes with thier own strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, there is the 'general practitioner' of Wizards -- the basic Wizard class by itself.Right now we have a Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian class. I feel that using the model of the Wizard and the various sub-classes it represents, many things can be eleviated... Make one class with several focus models under it to simulate the various ways a Fighting specialist can be handled. Ranger and Paladin might even be better off handled as Prestige Classes... niot completely sold either way on this one...Right now we have a Cleric and a Druid class. I feel that using the model of the Wizard and the various sub-classes it represents, many thigns can be eleviated. Make one class with two (or more!) focus models under it to simulate the various ways a Priestly specialist can be handled.This is what I have suggested. I have not added any disadvantages or some-such mechanic at all; I have not added any additional feats. This is why I dismissed it. I think it is a false assumption.I never suggested the Barbarian be a Prestige class. I suggested that the Paladin be a Prestige Class. I suggested that one might be able to make an argument that the Ranger could/should be a Prestige Class (aka Bounty Hunter in Star Wars).The way you did it, yes. The way I suggested it - not at all. I would never want to see it handled the way you have suggested, either.Incorrect again; try treading the argument you are debating against. What I suggested was offering both classes, but making it clear that in most campaigns, only one of these classes should be made available, depending upon how your campaign's arcane magic is to be handled.What you are suggesting is nothing at all like what I suggested, and once again indicated that you (at most) skimmed what I wrote, without realling reading it.Again -- PLEASE try to read the argument you are debating against before you try to debate against it. It will make you look much less foolish.Man... this one is really from left field. Consider yourself in my 'ignore' list until such time as you can read what it is that you are arguing against and absorb soem of the information from those words...Honestly, I do not mean to sound harsh here, but it is painfully obvious that you are not reading anything I have written here. Not one word.Nada.Zilch.Zero.And that, aside from being just plain rude when you are feeling the need to debate, is insulting and disrespectful.</blockquote>

Verification