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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thanee" data-source="post: 1544904" data-attributes="member: 478">Just a general note. With the (still) highly restrictive class system, it's better to have more core classes.If the system actually worked the way, like you could build a monk out of cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard or any combination of those, but it simply doesn't. You could make a character that has a similar background, but it still would be a fighter/rogue, not a monk, for example. It would only work that way, if they did away with pretty much all class abilities (i.e. the rogue always has trapfinding and sneak attack, which limits its application, unless you simply ignore those abilities) and make everything modular (i.e. based on feats). There should not be any class abilities beyond BAB, HP, saves, skills, feats and spellcasting abilities then. Classes needed to be generic (and I mean completely generic). But it wouldn't be D&D anymore...Some of the classes, aren't even classes (i.e. noble? Why is that a class? can clerics, fighters, rogues or wizards not be nobles?).So, I have voted for like 60% of the above to be core classes!Some classes (like duelist or knight) really are just 'upgrades' to a core class, but many of those are completely different concepts.Antipaladin/Blackguard - No, that's something you grow into.Archer - No, just a fighterAssassin - No, update for the rogueDuelist/Swashbuckler - No, update for the fighterKnight/Cavalier - No, update for the fighterNoble/Aristocrat - No, pointless class.Paladin - No, altho I have no problems with this as a core class, it doesn't need to be one.Spy/Infiltrator - No, update for the rogue.Witch - Yes, different enough concept-wise, unless you just make it a wizard with a specific spell selection, of course.ByeThanee</blockquote>

Verification