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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6193701" data-attributes="member: 2067">That's not really a problem, in my mind. No one needs to get a big bonus out of any particular magic item, and if the party fighter has a lower strength than the party cleric, perhaps the item is a better fit for that cleric, anyway (the fighter is probably a better fit for things that require, say, a high DEX or a high WIS or something -- clearly, that fighter shouldn't be the one doing things that revolve around having a high STR in the party). I don't see any problem with giving everyone access to all the cool toys, personally. I don't know why anyone who loves swords (from the fighter to the skill-based ranger to the sword-dancing monk to the spell-casting bladedancer to the tanky swordmage to the skald-like bard) shouldn't dream of a vorpal sword, and why all characters who love light weapons (from the light-weapon fighter to the cleric of the nobility to the Musketeer-esque paladin to a wizard-dilletante) can't dream of a rapier of piercing. I also don't see why any character who can cast spells (hexblades and paladins and arcane-tatooed barbarians and runic axe-users and monks who learn elemental ki arts and whatever) can't dream of items that let them use those spells more often (scrolls, wands, whatever). None of those distinctions make any sense to hard-code into the game. "Oh, I suppose my cleric of bravery and courage can't get the extra bonus from a potion of heroism because I forgot to check the right box during character creation" isn't a situation I want to see. 3e and 4e combined have given me more than my fill of pointless, niche little items that are only useful to very specific kinds of characters.I'm with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], here. Some thief-king in the world is going to decide based on the little box you checked at character creation that the priest of the god of thieves and luck isn't welcome in a place that the foppish noble bard-duellist with ties to the knights is, just because one happens to be a "priest" and one happens to be a "trickster," based purely on academic class distinctions? This sounds like a recipe for frustration and facepalming. All of these distinctions are going to be artificial at some point. There's no getting around it -- they don't grow organically out of the game as it is played, they represent someone trying to overprocess and over-define from a high level. My fallen ronin doesn't need to check a box that says "Rogue" to say that he gets by on his wits, or a box that says "Warrior" to say that he uses heavy armor, or a box that says "Priest" to say that he holds his ancestors as still helping him to this day, or a box that says "Mage" to use the magical abilities the souls of his ancestors, trapped in his swords, give him. This model is useful for demonstrating that "rogue" and "fighter" (and, to a large degree, "priest") are as meaninglessly vague as "mage" was in their own ways, but I don't really see much of a benefit in using it in any way.</blockquote>

Verification