NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6125539" data-attributes="member: 7006">This is mainly my point... that we should try to avoid using fluff that often to designate who characters are, because that fluff means many different things in many different games.If we want 'gladiator' to be more usable to a wider group of players at a wider group of tables... we shouldn't see it assigned to so many things within the game.  Instead, it should be up to the players themselves to say "My character is a gladiator."We don't assign what it is Clerics do.  Their sub-classes are not "Missionaries" or "Evangelists", or "Priests" or "Templars".  Instead... Clerics can be any of those things, and instead can help define how they behave as those things by choosing a god to follow.  The gods do not define the types of Clerics out there, they tell us what their focus or specialization is.  Likewise, the Traditions don't define the types of Wizards out there, they tell us what those Wizards' focus or specialization is.  And I think the same should hold true for the Fighter.You are a Cleric who focuses on the god of death or the god of light.  You are a Wizard who specializes in conjuration or transmutation.  You are a Fighter who focuses on gladiator or specializes in scout.To me... there is a marked difference there on that third thing.  One that I don't think just looks or works very well.  Not when you could just as easily change it to "focuses on dual weapons" and "specializes in commando fighting."</blockquote>

Verification