Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mal Malenkirk" data-source="post: 4596815" data-attributes="member: 834">Most posters are players.Their reaction at the notion of discarding several class when you can just retool existing classes in different power sources should tip you at the reactions of potential players of your campaign.Barring a few options from a campaign world is commonly done (Such as 'No Dragonborn').&nbsp; But flushing several classes wholesale is less common.For example, the Paladin has no real replacement.&nbsp; Sure,&nbsp; the party won't suffer with another defender instead, but the Fighter and Swordmage do not play at all like the paladin.&nbsp; You get rid of him, you get rid of an entire playing style for a defender.If the players don't care about the missing classes and wouldn't have selected them even if they were available in the first place, then it doesn't matter at all.&nbsp; But if they did, then you have to explain your concept of flexibility to a player who doesn't understand why he can't play a primal powered paladin and fluff him as an Ancestral Warrior (or whatever would fit the campaign).You want to know the experience of DM who have restricted the player's choice in the past?&nbsp; That's mine.&nbsp; Players want choices, lots of them.&nbsp; And nothing brings out the desire to play a particular class than realizing that for some reason it can't be done in this campaign.&nbsp; That's human nature.&nbsp; If you know your players well enough that you only barred thing theys don't care about and lavished love on the things they appreciate, then it's great.&nbsp; Good campaigning.&nbsp; Just take care not to fall in love with your concepts.&nbsp; Many DMs do and forget that it's the player who get to inhabit the carefully laid out campaign.EDIT : Otherwise, of course you can play without divine power source.&nbsp; Essentially, all you are asking is, ''What happens to a party that uses a warlord instead of a cleric and a fighter instead of a paladin?''&nbsp; They're just fine.&nbsp; Everybody knows that.&nbsp; That's why advice have focused on ways to retool existing divine class into something appropriate for a campaign without divine source instead of hammering the obvious point.&nbsp;&nbsp; Paladin and cleric, beside their fluff, offer a specific style of play that the other defenders and leaders don't offer.&nbsp; Discarding fluff is one thing, discarding entire playing styles is something else altogether.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mal Malenkirk, post: 4596815, member: 834"] Most posters are players. Their reaction at the notion of discarding several class when you can just retool existing classes in different power sources should tip you at the reactions of potential players of your campaign. Barring a few options from a campaign world is commonly done (Such as 'No Dragonborn'). But flushing several classes wholesale is less common. For example, the Paladin has no real replacement. Sure, the party won't suffer with another defender instead, but the [U]Fighter and Swordmage do not play at all like the paladin[/U]. You get rid of him, you get rid of an entire playing style for a defender. If the players don't care about the missing classes and wouldn't have selected them even if they were available in the first place, then it doesn't matter at all. But if they did, then you have to explain your concept of flexibility to a player who doesn't understand why he can't play a primal powered paladin and fluff him as an Ancestral Warrior (or whatever would fit the campaign). You want to know the experience of DM who have restricted the player's choice in the past? That's mine. Players want choices, lots of them. And nothing brings out the desire to play a particular class than realizing that for some reason it can't be done in this campaign. That's human nature. If you know your players well enough that you only barred thing theys don't care about and lavished love on the things they appreciate, then it's great. Good campaigning. Just take care not to fall in love with your concepts. Many DMs do and forget that it's the player who get to inhabit the carefully laid out campaign. EDIT : Otherwise, of course you can play without divine power source. Essentially, all you are asking is, ''What happens to a party that uses a warlord instead of a cleric and a fighter instead of a paladin?'' They're just fine. Everybody knows that. That's why advice have focused on ways to retool existing divine class into something appropriate for a campaign without divine source instead of hammering the obvious point. Paladin and cleric, beside their fluff, offer a specific [U]style[/U] of play that the other defenders and leaders don't offer. Discarding fluff is one thing, discarding entire playing styles is something else altogether. [/QUOTE]

Verification