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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5732710" data-attributes="member: 4892">No, it is not that restrictive and if you've read any of my replies to Imaro you wold see that I'm in favor of taking stuff from the game and making it work for one's concept.Delving into "just homebrew it" as your answer is disingenuous. You *know* that's not what I'm talking about. You *could* have built your phalanx soldier in 2003 *IF* your DM agreed to your homebrew creations. Same can be said for any concept in any game, but in common discussion one cannot assume that homebrewing is an option in another person's game. I'm pretty sure you knew my question was "Could you make a phalanx soldier the same way you do now with published rules" before you answered. That's what I meant by affecting design. No. You just need to decide how it works out in fluff. If you want to make a Striker that works for the goddess of cute kittens and puppies, then you have to fill the gap between "Guy Who Does Lots of Damage" and "Defender of Fuzzy Baby Animals." No game is going to hand that to you on a silver platter. I know there's a middle ground and I'm not overlooking it. Why is your worshipper of the God of War a Paladin if your only concept for a worshipper of the God of War as a Striker? Why wouldn't you play a Barbarian and refluff the background to Champion of the War God? Even without Tayne's homebrewing there is alot of space to make the concept you want. You're the one stuck on the Paladin class and not allowing for any thoughts outside that box. Well, I've always known the paladin as the Shining Protector, one maight even say Defender of the Meek. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Oh, yeah, uh-huh! Thug build of Rogue. No multiclassing, hybridization or feat taxes required.No. I don't think you do understand. If you want a fighter (intentional small 'f') who is highly skilled with the crossbow there are better martial class choices than Fighter for your concept. You are the one choosing to tie yourself to a class.Even in third edition I encountered this baffling mindset. I made a multiclass barbarian/sorcerer. People tried to pigeonhole my character as a brute from the fringe of society. Nope, he was a minor noble's son from a large city. People tried to pigeonhole him as a spellslinger. Nope, the concept was a young man from a noble bloodline tainted (or blessed) with dragon blood. He could call upon the strength of his dragon heritage for short bursts of time. The spells I chose for him supported the concept and weren't of the flashy type but represented this inner strength he pulled from. But too many people saw Brb/Sor and demanded that I was some wild hedge wizard instead of my true character concept.</blockquote>

Verification