Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 1124692" data-attributes="member: 10397">The idea of a systam with 3 or 4 &quot;base&quot; classes and a bunch of&nbsp; prestige/advanced classes is a nifty one..and about the only way I could see anything like that working. But I see 2 small problems with it.&nbsp; The first one is a taste thing of mine. For me, for some classes, it would seem a trifle unrealistic. I want to be a woodsmen/hunter but first I have to become a warrior? I want to be a bard but first I have to be a rogue (or whatever)? That just seems a little unrealistic to me. In the real world, people go for the jobs they want. Now for some I could see it. Being an Acolyte and then a Priest or and Aprenetice, then a Mage (then perhaps a Conjurer or whatever). &nbsp; The other is this: If you've got a system of say 4 base classes and loads of prestige/advanced classes like Ranger Bard Wizard Cleric Druid Paladin etc that can be achieved in the first few levels...arent you sort of defeating the purpose? You end up with the same classes, you just have to take 3 levels in a base class or classes first.&nbsp; I'm just really curious as to what atracts people to those sort of systems though. Why people seem to prefer having a few base classes and shaping them into the archtypes, rather than having more classes for more archtypes. I also wonder why so many seem to think a number of archtypes are totaly invalid...like Bard Ranger Druid and Monk. Of course the monk thing is partialy cause the insisted on easternizing it for some reason.&nbsp; As for the Cleric I agree with Joshua that the DND cleric is NOT a fantasy archtype...it IS a DNDism. But there is an archtype of the Priest, and definitly of the healing-focused mage type. But the DnD cleric with its tons of spells and goodly deal of combat ability is like some weird mesh of the Priest and the Holy Knight/Crusader archtypes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merlion, post: 1124692, member: 10397"] The idea of a systam with 3 or 4 "base" classes and a bunch of prestige/advanced classes is a nifty one..and about the only way I could see anything like that working. But I see 2 small problems with it. The first one is a taste thing of mine. For me, for some classes, it would seem a trifle unrealistic. I want to be a woodsmen/hunter but first I have to become a warrior? I want to be a bard but first I have to be a rogue (or whatever)? That just seems a little unrealistic to me. In the real world, people go for the jobs they want. Now for some I could see it. Being an Acolyte and then a Priest or and Aprenetice, then a Mage (then perhaps a Conjurer or whatever). The other is this: If you've got a system of say 4 base classes and loads of prestige/advanced classes like Ranger Bard Wizard Cleric Druid Paladin etc that can be achieved in the first few levels...arent you sort of defeating the purpose? You end up with the same classes, you just have to take 3 levels in a base class or classes first. I'm just really curious as to what atracts people to those sort of systems though. Why people seem to prefer having a few base classes and shaping them into the archtypes, rather than having more classes for more archtypes. I also wonder why so many seem to think a number of archtypes are totaly invalid...like Bard Ranger Druid and Monk. Of course the monk thing is partialy cause the insisted on easternizing it for some reason. As for the Cleric I agree with Joshua that the DND cleric is NOT a fantasy archtype...it IS a DNDism. But there is an archtype of the Priest, and definitly of the healing-focused mage type. But the DnD cleric with its tons of spells and goodly deal of combat ability is like some weird mesh of the Priest and the Holy Knight/Crusader archtypes. [/QUOTE]

Verification