Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 8459623" data-attributes="member: 2209">I think it was to allow people to play any class or race combo, and have it be roughly balanced for combat at every level/xp amount. So no weak low level wizards, no prerequisites for paladin or ranger, no paladins and rangers are just better fighters with more powers and a higher xp cost.I believe they had four core archetypes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard) and worked variations off of those.So warrior types were based on the fighter who were at base tough, had good BAB, and good AC with the new thing of bonus feats for martial expertise. Paladins got powers and spells but gave up fighter feats so they were less good at weapon maneuvers. Rangers gave up some AC and a bunch of feat options for spells and skills. Barbarians gave up heavy armor and feats for rage, d12s, and extra skills.Rogues got sneak attack and skills at the cost of lower toughness, BAB, and AC. The variants were bards who gave up sneak attack for spells, and monks who got monk fighting powers. Sneak attack and skills were overvalued so the rogue roles were all generally not up to everybody else in combat. Much better at combat than thieves in AD&D, but not the equal of others.Clerics were full casters unlike in B/X or the limited top level spells of AD&D but with a strong emphasis on easy healing and buffing with a secondary of decently tough in direct melee. Druids were a variation to be less armor, but have more nature spells, skills, and their wildshape and other minor druid powers.Wizards were vulnerable, they had strong attack and utility spells but weak on all other fronts. Sorcerers were a slight variation throwing more spells of less varieties..</blockquote>

Verification