Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Szatany" data-source="post: 6125530" data-attributes="member: 21178">I'm sorry if I offend you but it's one of most amusing (to not say silly) things I read here.It's like saying having both fighter, barbarian, paladin and samurai classes (in 3e) is inelegant and sloppy because I can use any of those to play a sword wielding melee oriented character. I guess in your mind the good way to do it was to design only one class that does a good job at portraying that kind of character?I'm just trying to show you an example of what you're proposing. I hope you're starting to realize that in fact the opposite is true. Multiple routes to the same destination is elegant and preffered. People will use that they need or what they can get. What if there's gladiator feat, gladiator fighter subclass and gladiator background. Someone who's not a fighter can be a dedicated gladiator by picking up the feat and getting bonuses similar to the fighter's, but on smaller scale. Even a figher might take it if he wants to have one true speciality (say, knight) and one semi-speciality (gladiator through a feat). Or another player might not have either a class or feat to spare but still wants to play gladiator-flavored character, so he opts for the background.How about we apply your way of thinking into adventure design? It means straight railroading is good and sandbox is bad. Can't disagree more.</blockquote>