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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5910940" data-attributes="member: 7635">My point at the end of the day is that if a class has a mythological or legacy name attached to it, it needs to attempt to emulate that trope. I think Arcana Evolved actually did something brilliant when it redesigned the classes, it gave them nonsense names (unfettered, oathsworn, greenbond) which are mildly descriptive but in no way handle the legacy baggage that paladin, druid, or ranger does. I sometimes lament that if 4e was going to be such a clean break from previous versions, they didn't go all the way with it. I get a real stick in my craw, for example, when people talk of "evil paladin of Asmodeus" because paladins are defined in the dictionary as "heroic champions". However, I'd probably never batted an eye at "evil oathsworn of Asmodeus" as being a knight who serves the whims of an evil deity. Anyway, my hope is really that Next embraces more of the fluff and tropes in the classes as D&D did before. I think it was flavorful that most (if not all) thieves can from thieves guilds, all paladins were LG, druids were all members of one worldspanning Order, or rangers never settled down before 8th level. (Some, like druidic combat annoyed me, thank Pelor THAT'S not coming back). Likewise, I don't want to see classes completely mechanically perscriptive so that rogues can't use shortbows or fighters are melee-combatants only. There is a good balance to be found, I hope they find it.</blockquote>

Verification