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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5739973" data-attributes="member: 48965">What class is called sword and board??? There is however a class called knight.    Yet in those classes there are no mechanics to back your characters pact claim up. However the Warlock class (because it is based on this very archetype) does have the mechanics that fit my concept to a tee... so why should the concept of pact-bound arcane wielder be tied up with striker thus forcing me (if I want mechanical weight to the fluff composing my concept) to play a striker? You see you and many others keep dancing aound this question... don't tell me to squint really hard, ignore the fact that I have no mechanical weight to my concept, and many of my abilities and skills won't fit it... tell me why the concept of the wielder of magic gained through a pact with an other-worldly being should be tied to the striker combat role??    Again mechanical weight matters and you keep ignoring that fact. That's why your 3e barbarian not-city dwelling (but city dwelling), not-noble born (but noble born) character is a mess. Because the classes are based on fantasy archetypes and those archetypes set up what are and aren't class abilities, skills, etc. for particular classes.     No one said it was impossible... you're character will just be less and less effective, compared to others in the party. You loose gameplay power for story power which kinda sucks when it would be a simple matter not to tie class to combat role..</blockquote>

Verification