Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JoeBlank" data-source="post: 624778" data-attributes="member: 1806">One overall fix for the PHB that I think would help would be to simply specify which portions of a class description are &quot;flavor&quot; and which portions are needed for balance. Many of the rules we complain about (paladin and monk multi-classing, druid weapon restictions) have been referred to as &quot;flavor&quot; text, and it has been said that these can be altered without affecting balance. So just say so in the class descriptions.For instance, add to the format for class descriptions a final section called &quot;Flavor&quot; (or hopefully something better then that). Sort of like in the alignment descriptions, the little paragraphs that start out &quot;Lawful good is the best alignment because . . . &quot; This section could start out &quot;Most Paladins . . . &quot; and follow with things like &quot;are not allowed to multiclass, as their deity requires complete devotion and dedication to the calling&quot;, or &quot;Most druids undertake an oath that forbids them to use certain weapons because . . . &quot;If it says right there in the PHB what class features and restrictions are in place to create balance, and which are &quot;optional&quot;, it will be much easier to agree on changes to a class without risking upsetting balance. This fits the stated purpose of the 3.5 changes by providing options rather than restrictions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JoeBlank, post: 624778, member: 1806"] One overall fix for the PHB that I think would help would be to simply specify which portions of a class description are "flavor" and which portions are needed for balance. Many of the rules we complain about (paladin and monk multi-classing, druid weapon restictions) have been referred to as "flavor" text, and it has been said that these can be altered without affecting balance. So just say so in the class descriptions. For instance, add to the format for class descriptions a final section called "Flavor" (or hopefully something better then that). Sort of like in the alignment descriptions, the little paragraphs that start out "Lawful good is the best alignment because . . . " This section could start out "Most Paladins . . . " and follow with things like "are not allowed to multiclass, as their deity requires complete devotion and dedication to the calling", or "Most druids undertake an oath that forbids them to use certain weapons because . . . " If it says right there in the PHB what class features and restrictions are in place to create balance, and which are "optional", it will be much easier to agree on changes to a class without risking upsetting balance. This fits the stated purpose of the 3.5 changes by providing options rather than restrictions. [/QUOTE]

Verification