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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6105170" data-attributes="member: 42582">If clerics are Knights Templar, aren't avengers the Assassins?I just don't see how crusaders is a broader concept  than religous martial artist devotee.It adds a fair bit of Gandalf, doesn't it?I guess it could be done as a cleric variant, but that's changing the cleric from what it historically has been, to give it differeing armour proficiencies, weapon proficiencies, spell access etc. There's nothing wrong with that, but that's not tending to show that the traditional D&D cleric is amazingly broad in a way that the invoker isn't. It's showing that if you change the paramaters for class design you might build a "class" (really, a series of sub-classes with some mechanical overlap) that can replicate either of the earlier classes.But who's the arbiter? If a lot of people actually enjoy the avenger or the warlord as a base class, what is the point of running an argument, based on your own aesthetic preconceptions, that they're wrong?Like D'Karr I can't XP this, but a terrific post.My own take: Lancelot is a STR paladin (PP perhaps Knight Commander on the back of a warlord MC)), Galahad a CHA paladin (PP Questing Knight). I know that a lot of people don't like the V-shaped classes, but I personally think this on its own is justification for the two paladin options!But nor is it definitionally true that a class is first and foremost a world-building or world-representing tool.AbdulAlhazred isn't asserting a definitional truth. He's pointing out a system feature of 4e and its use of classes as (overwhelmingly) PC building tools. And the broader point is that there are multiple ways of using classes (ie at least the 4e way, and the 3E way), and D&Dnext presumably - given its proclaimed universality - should have regard to these multiple ways.</blockquote>

Verification