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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khuxan" data-source="post: 4647837" data-attributes="member: 38801">I like this goal for game design. If I were to choose 11 classes based on this criterium (and other criteria, of course, such as role and power source), I'd go with those listed below. I'm interested in your opinions - if you don't agree with one of my choices, which class would you replace it with?Warriors: I'd let warriors and experts choose feats from Tome of Battle if they wanted added complexity.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Barbarian: Fairly simple to grasp and easy to play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fighter: Diverse and not hugely complicated.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Paladin: Again, not a complicated class.</li> </ul>Experts:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rogue: A class with few difficult abilities to keep track of, and one that can hold its own in combat.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Scout: A class that fills a different niche to the rogue, but still a viable one.</li> </ul>Priests:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Shapeshifter druid: The shapeshifting options simplify and balance wild shape to a great extent.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Favoured soul: Simpler than the cleric, and more balanced besides. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Marshal: Normally not what I'd consider a "simple" class, but it's the only priest with no spellcasting.</li> </ul>Mages:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Warlock: An obvious choice.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Dragonfire Adept: Simple as the warlock, but with a different flavour.</li> </ul>Cross-Overs:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Dragon Shaman: A character that can fulfill a number of roles in combat.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification