Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 2835351" data-attributes="member: 7635">Too Vague. There are plenty of low-level thieves in a thieves guild, so would that prevent a Nightsong Enforcer-like thief?Semantics. Not every culture has a "cleric", very few have a "wizard". That would also get rid of druid, bard, paladin, and monk. If thats your intent, thats fine. Goes back to why Monte Cook came up with those ridicuous names for his AU classes...That removes paladins (LG), Druids (N-something), Barbarian/Beserker (Nonlawful), Monk (lawful), Bard (nonlawful) Knight (lawful), Warlock (Chaotic or evil), healer (good) hexblade (nongood) etc...Can't see dwarves or half-orcs being wizards, so does that make wizard a PrC?All your points seem to lean toward a "generic" system like d20, Grim Tales, or even the generic classes in UA. Its hard to argue with 3-4 highly customizable classes like warrior, expert, and spellcaster/adept. However, does that superficially-generic-but-highly-customizable element belong in "traditional" D&D? Thats a different debate, I guess.I think you are on to something though, what makes "druid" a unique, full-fleshed out 20 level class that seems to fit in almost any campaign, vs "samurai" with its very stereotyped role and narrow focus. What makes an "assassin" a class anyone can jump into but a ninja a "start-at-level-1" affair?  Can that line be drawn? Is it WotC's job to draw it?</blockquote>