Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tlantl" data-source="post: 5826770" data-attributes="member: 55225">I hope none of the class structure looks anything like yours. If the class is that of fighter then it should be capable of doing everything a fighter can do. Sub classes of fighters are given niches to fill not roles they fill in a fight. Paladins fight for right and good rangers spend their time trailblazing and scouting. Warlord is a title not a class. Dividing up the classes to fit as pieces (on a board?) of a puzzle is what got the game in trouble. If it continues then what is the sense of trying to do it all over again.First and foremost a fighter is a fighter is a fighter. From there you make small changes to reflect the niche the sub class fits into. The Paladin and the Ranger were both specialty classes you needed very specific qualifications to be able to take, More like modern prestige classes than separate classes on their own.The ranger could only be good and needed 13's or better in strength and intelligence to qualify.Paladins were even harder to qualify for. If either did anything against their alignments they lost their powers until the made atonements. It seems that along the way all of the negative things that helped define the classes was lost leaving behind something that is less than it was intended.</blockquote>