Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TrippyHippy" data-source="post: 5988829" data-attributes="member: 27252">I'd probably react by pointing out it's not really an argument you are presenting beyond just being faecetious. The thing is for me, at least, 99% of all 'Classes' are indeed just minor adjustments on the fundaments represented by Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Mages, Bards and Paladins. A Barbarian isn't really a 'Class' - it's a cultural background. The various abilities associated with the class are stereotyping. You could build a Fighter with the Background of 'Barbarian', the theme of 'Beserker' and have all the raging abilities bought as Feats, and all the survival abilities bought as skills. The same could be argued with a Warlord (simply a fighter that is built with a theme of Leadership and Inspiration, rather than a seperate Class). Assassins, likewise, are really just highly specialised Rogues, in effect. Sorcerers are just Mages with a more primal, spontaneous approach to magic. All of these concepts could, potentially, be built from the core eight classes with various Backgrounds and Themes. Same thing with Monk, to a degree, although the other major problem with Monks have always been a lack of focus as to what the Class was really about. I'm saying that a Monk could be represented by a Fighter Class, with a Mystic Background and an Unarmed Combat Theme (say).  If the Class/Background/Theme system is built carefully enough, no character concept ought to be left out. Indeed, if it is done well, there is no reason to suppose it can't open up options rather than shut them down - imagine that afore-mentioned Barbarian Beserker? Imagine it being built on top of the Ranger Class instead of the Fighter as an option? Imagine a Barbarian Cleric? Imagine a Mage with a Background of Mystic and a Theme of Unarmed Combat? Etc</blockquote>

Verification