Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Intense_Interest" data-source="post: 4232456" data-attributes="member: 65904">Sacred Cow.&nbsp; Tasty Beef.&nbsp; Also what is this CN you speak of?&nbsp; Why would any mortal choose to dedicate themselves to an ineffable concept?&nbsp; Alignment debates and PC/GM conflict are particularly tasty forms of Sacred Cow.&nbsp; Because PrCs are wasted design space with little to no cross-application.&nbsp; Anything a PrC is trying to do should be included within a class's path.&nbsp; Taking 1 level of &quot;Champion of Bane&quot; doesn't make you a level 17 Champion of Bane.&nbsp; It makes you a level 16 beatstick with some front-loaded features added on.&nbsp; Or worse, a level 17 half-formed mutation that can't compete with anything of an equal level.So is giving Fighters more to do in combat and more unique abilities.&nbsp; Or Wizards without a slavish devotion to Vance.&nbsp; There is nothing to complain about here that there isn't in the redesigning of the entire edition.&nbsp; Paladins, specifically, are now supposed to be an open concept that allows more people to play something other than a reconstituted Healbot leader-type.&nbsp; Champion of a God vs. Speaker for a God.&nbsp; He is redesigned, yet this is for the better.Every Class is supposed to have a purpose- A &quot;Role&quot;, if you will.&nbsp; These &quot;Roles&quot; should be core concepts of the base class and the primary application of their abilities.&nbsp; If a class has no purpose or &quot;Role&quot; within a party, they are not a well-designed class and it should be investigated if their &quot;Role&quot; is at all necessary.If a Paladin's &quot;Role&quot; is to be a walking Philosophy argument, why keep him?&nbsp; If a Paladin's &quot;Role&quot; could be expanded into having more freedom for the enjoyment of players, why limit that?If you didn't have anything to compare the changes to, you and I wouldn't have an argument at all.&nbsp; Because I can tell you that allowing more people can play their characters true to their concepts is an objectively better situation than a kludgeamication in the name of a Sacred Cow.All combat-inclusive Roleplaying games are elaborated games of cops and robbers, with some kind of system involved so that the kind of &quot;Hit You!&nbsp; Nyuh Unh!&quot; argument doesn't descend.&nbsp; &nbsp; Complaining that the actual mechanics and mathematics of this system allows for more freedom and less arguments over what entails a Code breaking isn't a point in your favor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Intense_Interest, post: 4232456, member: 65904"] Sacred Cow. Tasty Beef. Also what is this CN you speak of? Why would any mortal choose to dedicate themselves to an ineffable concept? Alignment debates and PC/GM conflict are particularly tasty forms of Sacred Cow. Because PrCs are wasted design space with little to no cross-application. Anything a PrC is trying to do should be included within a class's path. Taking 1 level of "Champion of Bane" doesn't make you a level 17 Champion of Bane. It makes you a level 16 beatstick with some front-loaded features added on. Or worse, a level 17 half-formed mutation that can't compete with anything of an equal level. So is giving Fighters more to do in combat and more unique abilities. Or Wizards without a slavish devotion to Vance. There is nothing to complain about here that there isn't in the redesigning of the entire edition. Paladins, specifically, are now supposed to be an open concept that allows more people to play something other than a reconstituted Healbot leader-type. Champion of a God vs. Speaker for a God. He is redesigned, yet this is for the better. Every Class is supposed to have a purpose- A "Role", if you will. These "Roles" should be core concepts of the base class and the primary application of their abilities. If a class has no purpose or "Role" within a party, they are not a well-designed class and it should be investigated if their "Role" is at all necessary. If a Paladin's "Role" is to be a walking Philosophy argument, why keep him? If a Paladin's "Role" could be expanded into having more freedom for the enjoyment of players, why limit that? If you didn't have anything to compare the changes to, you and I wouldn't have an argument at all. Because I can tell you that allowing more people can play their characters true to their concepts is an objectively better situation than a kludgeamication in the name of a Sacred Cow. All combat-inclusive Roleplaying games are elaborated games of cops and robbers, with some kind of system involved so that the kind of "Hit You! Nyuh Unh!" argument doesn't descend. Complaining that the actual mechanics and mathematics of this system allows for more freedom and less arguments over what entails a Code breaking isn't a point in your favor. [/QUOTE]

Verification