Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 2316536" data-attributes="member: 151">The fighter class works well for what it was intended to do, which is let you choose between a few basic sub-types of warrior, such as stick-and-board, axe, bowman, turtle or the like.&nbsp; It does not allow for a good swift or dextrous warrior.&nbsp; You can do Conan, for example, but not the Prince of Persia.&nbsp; Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed class, the Unfetered, apparently fills this niche; the standard fighter class does not.&nbsp; This is not necessarily a condemnation of the class, you understand: in point of fact, it could be easily remedied within the existing framework of the game with specific feats that are restricted in the same fashion as Weapon Specialization.Arguably, all classes could work this way in some capacity...but it's a question of tradeoffs.&nbsp; Most of the fighters flexibility comes in a very narrow space.&nbsp; He's very good with an axe or a sword, for example, or can take a special attack.&nbsp; Many of the special talents for a spellcaster would be more varied and arguably much more convoluted.Further, many classes might become diluted by the effort.&nbsp; Paladins are a core class because playtesters felt they should be.&nbsp; Many players felt strongly about multiclass restrictions on paladins and monks, as well, which is why these restrictions remain in the core even today.&nbsp; If you make a Paladin just a fighter with a different bonus feat set, does he actually remain a paladin?&nbsp; IMHO, he wouldn't...but that's a point of personal preference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 2316536, member: 151"] The fighter class works well for what it was intended to do, which is let you choose between a few basic sub-types of warrior, such as stick-and-board, axe, bowman, turtle or the like. It does not allow for a good swift or dextrous warrior. You can do Conan, for example, but not the Prince of Persia. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed class, the Unfetered, apparently fills this niche; the standard fighter class does not. This is not necessarily a condemnation of the class, you understand: in point of fact, it could be easily remedied within the existing framework of the game with specific feats that are restricted in the same fashion as Weapon Specialization. Arguably, all classes could work this way in some capacity...but it's a question of tradeoffs. Most of the fighters flexibility comes in a very narrow space. He's very good with an axe or a sword, for example, or can take a special attack. Many of the special talents for a spellcaster would be more varied and arguably much more convoluted. Further, many classes might become diluted by the effort. Paladins are a core class because playtesters felt they should be. Many players felt strongly about multiclass restrictions on paladins and monks, as well, which is why these restrictions remain in the core even today. If you make a Paladin just a fighter with a different bonus feat set, does he actually remain a paladin? IMHO, he wouldn't...but that's a point of personal preference. [/QUOTE]

Verification