Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 382854" data-attributes="member: 4937">Oh good grief.Actually, so did I.Err... why would you say that?  Maybe you ought to reread the post.  You might find that there is more relevant sections than you currently seem to think, such as:"Is Aristocrat already a viable class? Sure. PC's may choose to take it for whatever reasons."So I think it is very clear that I do indeed get it.But, if you had read my post, you would note that my world is also full of NPC's with plenty of NPC classes, despite the fact that all beings PC or NPC are on the same level.   Are there NPC's with PC classes in your world?  What is different about them and the PC's that allows them to take PC classes?  Is it not the access to them, that distinguishes between them?Yeah, I know.  I understand that.  It is your reasoning that seems flawed. What house rule are you refering to?  The passage you quoted of mine immediately prior to this statement does not contain a house rule, and I reiterate, I too have a whole lot of NPC's with NPC classes.   Ok.Which I am. Err... didn't I just explain that.  The point of warrior is that it reflects the skills of a subsection of the community better than Aristocrat does, but continue...Agreed.Agreed.  If the NPC classes played no role, they wouldn't exist nor would they have been published.  The role that they are supposed to play is describing characters who either haven't had access to the same challenges as the average PC, or have chosen to avoid such challenges. I've got no problem with that.  I'm increasingly thinking what I do have a problem with is flying right over your head.And it is statements like that that lead me to think so.  As I said before, the point is not whether anyone takes a class.  My philosophy most certainly doesn't lead me to obselete wizards because PC's won't play Sorcerers.  PC's won't play warriors or commoners either, but that doesn't lead me to make warriors or commoners a more viable option.It is completely different, because Warrior does not exist as a class to provide a viable option to anyone but as a tool for DM's.  Even if we were to assume (as you have done) that NPC's and PC's are completely different, and that there is some inherent quality of PC's that lets them take PC classes, then you still have a contridiction - because Expert is in every manner is superior class to Commoner (even if we don't change anything), so that Commoner is in the sence you are using the word 'obsolete'.   Please explain to me why any of your NPC's are Commoners, when they could be Experts?And if your answer is access, then I have won this debate.To paraphrase you, 'If Expert trumps Commoner in every way, then what is the point of Commoner?'My problem with you lies solely in that your reasoning is poor.</blockquote>

Verification