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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7127440" data-attributes="member: 5100">Irony: The mystic is a better sorcerer than the sorcerer and the sorcerer is a better psion than the mystic.I'm kinda torn on this. When 3E came out and removed the race/class restrictions I was irritated. It actually didn't take that long for dwarven wizards to grow on me, though. By the time 3.5 came out, I actually didn't like the whole "favored class" nonsense -- actually, that shoehorn may have been part of what changed my tune.At this point, I'd say that I'm "over" the class thing altogether. By that, I mean that I really don't think that much about classes, anymore. They're rules constructs that can be used for certain character concepts. Yes, each class represents a certain archetype and should do it well. After 35 years of playing D&D, though, I've seen enough "archetypal rangers" that I don't need another one. The irony there is that I'm pretty opinionated on what that archetypal ranger should and shouldn't be and about the mechanics that should and shouldn't be part of the class.The same goes for races, to an extent. I don't want races that are too strongly tied to specific classes or even archetypes -- no more "humans with facial prostheses" acting as stand-ins for different human cultures. If you're going to have a non-human character, the race should matter beyond statistic benefits. It should be at least somewhat alien, like the elves from my setting. Either that, or go the Eberron (or Talislanta) route and have a variety of races that have some differences, but aren't alien in any way. In both cases, saying a race is particularly good at a given class isn't beneficial, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification