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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6201454" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yeah, I'm having a hard time imagining the character that naturally gets built that way, but mainly because three of those classes in the standard version of the game pull so much baggage from a background/personality perspective.  In my opinion this is unnecessary, and in particular by pulling that baggage they are limiting access to much more generic mechanics and concepts.  Not every raging character is a 'barbarian'.   Not every defender of a cause is a 'paladin'.  Not every monster hunter is a 'ranger'.Suppose we changed the class combination to Dervish/Templar/Righteous Vigilante/Inquisitor.   Might it dressed up in different background concepts make more sense even if the resulting mechanical possibilities were exactly the same?  Do you really see the above as uninteresting as a character concept?The equivalent in my game would be a Fighter/Champion/Fanatic/Hunter.   What I get from that is some sort of 'witch hunter' or 'demon hunter' sort of build, where the concept is Fanatical Inquisitor.   However, the build would nonetheless be almost impossible in my game, since 'Champions' can't freely multiclass once you have a level of Champion and build would require 15's in every stat because the cost of entry into the Champion class is so high.   On the other hand, Fighter/Champion/Fanatic and Champion/Fanatic/Hunter are perfectly reasonable and doable under my rules, and I can pretty easily imagine NPCs that would be most reasonably and naturally built that way, so why not PCs?I generally agree, although I don't think I take this idea as far as you seem to.   I'm perfectly ok with say Intelligence being absolutely critical to a Wizard, so long as the wizard is not most viable dump stating all other attributes in favor of maximizing Intelligence and there is some reason to imagine Wizards with any of the other 5 attributes favored as their second highest attribute and they aren't absolutely punished for doing so.Where I take this is similar to the idea mentioned that the Rogue ought to be viable and interesting with almost any ability as their primary ability.   I fully support the idea that there ought to be viable Strong rogues, Agile Rogues, Intelligent Rogues, and Charismatic Rogues.  Where this idea most influenced my design is I set as a challenge for myself it ought to be possible to have a party of six fighters, where each fighter was distinguished from the other mechanically and in concept.   Thus, there ought to be viable Strong fighters, Agile fighters, Tough fighters, Smart fighters, Cunning fighters, and Charismatic fighters.   And indeed, there might be viable builds of several sorts within those concepts.   To support this idea, I started imagining combat feat trees based around each of the concepts.  Right now I think I've achieved most of my goal, with only Wisdom being not particularly interesting as the fighters highest ability score.  (If anyone has some ideas for what wise/perceptive fighters are particularly good at, I'd be interested to hear it.  So far my problems is that mostly what they are good at is reactive, and not proactive.  It's not clear how they make up for the missing damage possible under a strength build.)</blockquote>

Verification