Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5938814" data-attributes="member: 2067">I get the side of the counter-argument that says "A fighter/cleric with a horse can make a passable paladin; a fighter/druid with stealth can make a passable ranger;" I don't disagree.I don't get how that immediately leaps to, "There should be no paladin or ranger class," then.The idea that classes need their own special unique niche is problematic in a modular game, because that means that the class is not replaceable. A modular game needs to be able to swap out any element it wants. It's perfectly OK to have a hundred different ways to do the same thing, because that allows each player to select the one that's right for them. Sometimes that'll be a class. Sometimes that'll be something else.There seems to be a pursuit here of simplicity for the sake of simplicity, or a desire that every rules element have some unique place in the game.It's OK for there to be many different ways to do "wilderness warrior" and "holy crusader" archetypes. Because there's many different variations and directions that could go in. Yes, you can do a passable paladin with a fighter/cleric.But why should we HAVE to, when we can also do a passable paladin with a paladin class, and then have BOTH?</blockquote>