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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kerleth" data-source="post: 6125463" data-attributes="member: 84383">+1 [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]. I agree with what you are saying. Just to play devil's advocate, however, there are some potential problems.1)Perception: People get confused about what exactly it means to be a gladiator. Also, any rules that back reference gladiator abilities will have to be very careful to avoid possible confusion.2) Fluffiness: Some people have a huge problem with even the smallest amount of refluffing. If they can't have all the abilities named after their concept than it isn't really their concept. There are many people who simply won't consider a spellcaster an illusionist unless he is the wizard with the illusionist tradition, and so feel that they can't make the sort of character they want. It doesn't matter if they depend almost entirely on illusion spells, they still don't have the correct job title. So if we have an "arena warrior" background or specialty, there will inevitably be a few people who say they can't play a barbarian gladiator, cause that's a fighter subclass. I personally think this is really silly, but it has come up many times in discussions about what should be classes. 3)Compatability: If someone wants to be "The Gladiator", they may be tempted to take all two, three, or four options for being so. This is logical. However, if the abilities of these don't all mesh well together, then you get feel bad moments where the abilities from your "protector fighter" overlap and don't stack with your "defender" specialty, and you are subpar. This creates pit traps in character creation that require an increased level of system mastery.To reiterate, I completely do agree with your point kamikaze. These are just some design issues they are going to have to watch out for.</blockquote>

Verification