Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6675436" data-attributes="member: 996">Heh.&nbsp; Of course, that could be because casters have had tons of options throughout the game's history, and are generally the best choice to have an impact in play.&nbsp; &nbsp;'Just leveling up' to 2nd is no mean feat.&nbsp; &nbsp;The 'standard' array does give you much better stats than the 3d6 bell-curve, and PC starting gear is worth more than a real medieval peasant would see in his lifetime.&nbsp;There is a profound double-standard, yes, and it's been with the game a long time.&nbsp; There's no reason for it, it's just one of those peculiar oddities that rises to the level of an institution over time because no one ever quite puts forth the effort to challenge it....&nbsp;Nowhere.&nbsp; Your Champion fighter can be a librarian, if you want, your Wizard can be a time-traveler who throws 22nd century grenades and 35th century party favors instead of spells.&nbsp; But, there is some merit to the idea that the name of the class or sub-class evoke what it's meant to be.&nbsp; Fighters are good at fighting, and nothing else.&nbsp; The name fits.&nbsp; Champions are not particularly better at fighting, nor are they even as good athletes as anyone with actual proficiency in Athletics, they have no special relationship to persons or causes or ideals they may be 'Championing,' no features that help them protect those they champion, nothing, really, to live up to or even suggest the name.&nbsp; &nbsp;Not at all.&nbsp; Really, the Noble background does a lot more to make you a Knight than the fighter class, you could be a Paladin or Cleric, for instance, and, with a Noble background and the right code of behavior, be every bit as much a Knight.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6675436, member: 996"] Heh. Of course, that could be because casters have had tons of options throughout the game's history, and are generally the best choice to have an impact in play. 'Just leveling up' to 2nd is no mean feat. The 'standard' array does give you much better stats than the 3d6 bell-curve, and PC starting gear is worth more than a real medieval peasant would see in his lifetime. There is a profound double-standard, yes, and it's been with the game a long time. There's no reason for it, it's just one of those peculiar oddities that rises to the level of an institution over time because no one ever quite puts forth the effort to challenge it.... Nowhere. Your Champion fighter can be a librarian, if you want, your Wizard can be a time-traveler who throws 22nd century grenades and 35th century party favors instead of spells. But, there is some merit to the idea that the name of the class or sub-class evoke what it's meant to be. Fighters are good at fighting, and nothing else. The name fits. Champions are not particularly better at fighting, nor are they even as good athletes as anyone with actual proficiency in Athletics, they have no special relationship to persons or causes or ideals they may be 'Championing,' no features that help them protect those they champion, nothing, really, to live up to or even suggest the name. Not at all. Really, the Noble background does a lot more to make you a Knight than the fighter class, you could be a Paladin or Cleric, for instance, and, with a Noble background and the right code of behavior, be every bit as much a Knight. [/QUOTE]

Verification