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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3294948" data-attributes="member: 2067">My own opinion is that those things are both a bit too narrow to revolve a class around. Yes, he has a sword and he casts spells, but that's what he does, not who he is. A good class should have an effect on the world around it, I feel. The Duskblade has a sword and casts spells, but he's also an elven archetype of battle magic, channeling magical essence through the ancient art of his people. I think that's a stronger archetype than a guy with a sword who casts spells.Not that Mageblades can't be more than that, just that the core AE document doesn't really suggest they're much more than that.#1: The Paladin works well as it is, and whether or not we even *need* Champions Of Banjo the Puppet God are definately open to questioning. #2: "Paladins of Different Alignments" are dealt with well right in the SRD...paladins of slaughter, of tyranny, of freedom...all good archetypes for the other three extremes. If, that is, you were interested in going beyond the regular paladin.This leads me to #3: The Champion is too broad for my liking. I want my champions of whatever to have distinct flavors that are best reflected by completely seperate classes, not by one generic "fighter of X" class. So, that's not nessecarily true (though certainly, if someone wants generic champions of X, the class does an admirable job...it's just not something I want).Compared to PHBII's Duskblade (or even CW's Hexblade or CA's Warmage), I think the "mageblade" is underwhelming. That's not really a knock -- AE was the first to do something like that -- but it's not a selling point for AE *now*.Obviously, not everyone feels that a wizard has to be what you feel a wizard has to be. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Which is that central issue of "reinventing the wheel."...I can claim runic abilities from 1st level magic items (all magic scrolls consist of a single rune, which corresponds to a spell...). A totally seperate class isn't nessecarily needed for my concept of what runes can accomplish. Indeed, I think it does the concept of runes an injustice, to assume that it requires some very narrow specialized focus training, instead of just being part of overall magical training.Again, part of why I feel the PHBII classes are stronger, overall. They all have some great archetypal basis....the witch really *doesn't.* It's a cool class, sure, but it isn't an existing, strong archetype like the Beguiler or the Knight is...heck, even the Dragon Shaman has some pretty okay archetypal strength to it (the Power of Dragons in my hands!).</blockquote>

Verification