Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8972066" data-attributes="member: 6790260">If it's purely &quot;what classes do you like more conceptually,&quot; then in alphabetical order (which is what I voted)BardFighterMonkPaladinSorcererWarlockWarlordOther than the Fighter, these are classes that have tons of built-in story potential--which you don't have to use, but can be really cool when you are able to use it. It's sad to have to drop the Druid, because I do like it conceptually too, but not enough to bump off any of the others on this list.Cleric and Wizard are out for being too generic, and I've just...never really cared about playing Barbarian. That plus the unfortunate implications of the class name is enough for me to leave it out. Ranger tends toward at least fraught design--it's often either OP or (more commonly) much too weak, so that's dropped more out of practicality than any positive or negative feeling. And Rogue just isn't the kind of character I'm interested in playing.I added Warlord because Warlord is an awesome class that deserves the breathing room to actually show what it can do.If instead we're talking about what I think would make the most &quot;historical&quot; sense, we end up with something like...BardCleric (absorbs Druid)Fighter (absorbs Barbarian and Paladin)Rogue (absorbs Monk and Ranger)SorcererWarlockWizardThat gives something I think would be the least contentious (but still very contentious) while achieving the goal of shortening the list.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8972066, member: 6790260"] If it's purely "what classes do you like more conceptually," then in alphabetical order (which is what I voted) Bard Fighter Monk Paladin Sorcerer Warlock Warlord Other than the Fighter, these are classes that have tons of built-in story potential--which you don't [I]have[/I] to use, but can be really cool when you [I]are[/I] able to use it. It's sad to have to drop the Druid, because I do like it conceptually too, but not enough to bump off any of the others on this list. Cleric and Wizard are out for being too generic, and I've just...never really cared about playing Barbarian. That plus the unfortunate implications of the class name is enough for me to leave it out. Ranger tends toward at least [I]fraught[/I] design--it's often either OP or (more commonly) much too weak, so that's dropped more out of practicality than any positive or negative feeling. And Rogue just isn't the kind of character I'm interested in playing. I added Warlord because Warlord is an awesome class that deserves the breathing room to actually show what it can do. If instead we're talking about what I think would make the most "historical" sense, we end up with something like... Bard Cleric (absorbs Druid) Fighter (absorbs Barbarian and Paladin) Rogue (absorbs Monk and Ranger) Sorcerer Warlock Wizard That gives something I think would be the least contentious (but still very contentious) while achieving the goal of shortening the list. [/QUOTE]

Verification