Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Creamsteak" data-source="post: 1394920" data-attributes="member: 552">No. Not unless you don't agree with me that the red mage traditionally used lesser black and white magic, and had a medium rank as a front line fighter.Monk, thief, fighter, red mage, black mage, white mage are the core classes in this design; all of these classes are on call from ff1. I kinda like using the original game as the core for the others. Chemists create and control magic items in quite a few ways. This is a DnD conversion, not just a d20 conversion, so spellcasting should remain requisite of item creation.In my opinion.I'm still thinking about this. It makes sense on a progression based level, and theres ways to do it mechanically. However, the Fieari summarizes my feelings about the wording more precisely. &quot;Why would?&quot; unless I pigeonhole a class which is the opposite of what I want to do. Of course, who would rather be called a warrior instead of a knight either, except if warrior implies additional versitility over being a heavy armored swordsman.I've detailed other versions of the project; I've worked with variants that you might appreciate more. This version is sort of an attempt to have clarity from the organization standpoint without forcing the classes through class loops like Final Fantasy Tactics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Creamsteak, post: 1394920, member: 552"] No. Not unless you don't agree with me that the red mage traditionally used lesser black and white magic, and had a medium rank as a front line fighter. Monk, thief, fighter, red mage, black mage, white mage are the core classes in this design; all of these classes are on call from ff1. I kinda like using the original game as the core for the others. Chemists create and control magic items in quite a few ways. This is a DnD conversion, not just a d20 conversion, so spellcasting should remain requisite of item creation. In my opinion. I'm still thinking about this. It makes sense on a progression based level, and theres ways to do it mechanically. However, the Fieari summarizes my feelings about the wording more precisely. "Why would?" unless I pigeonhole a class which is the opposite of what I want to do. Of course, who would rather be called a warrior instead of a knight either, except if warrior implies additional versitility over being a heavy armored swordsman. I've detailed other versions of the project; I've worked with variants that you might appreciate more. This version is sort of an attempt to have clarity from the organization standpoint without forcing the classes through class loops like Final Fantasy Tactics. [/QUOTE]

Verification