Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nopantsyet" data-source="post: 1478154" data-attributes="member: 3109">Driddle-While I can see your point, for me those classes are options in and of themselves.&nbsp; From a RP perspective, I see the monk and paladin as so focused and lawful that they don't necessarily look for other options.&nbsp; And the barbarian as too chaotic to discipline himself to learn much else.&nbsp; But that's a flavor explanation for a mechanic, which probably isn't a satisfying response to you.On the other hand, there's nothing to say you cannot make a &quot;Paladin&quot; whose actual class is a fighter or a ranger, maybe with a level or three of cleric thrown in.&nbsp; As I interpret the way the mechanics are balanced, power and options are inversely proportional.&nbsp; The sorcerer knows fewer spells that a wizard, but can cast more flexibly, etc.&nbsp; In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.&nbsp; And these three classes do have some pretty powerful class abilities; so I believe few options is there precisely for balance.&nbsp; Following this idea to its logical conclusion, would you be satisfied to see a Paladin (or monk or barbarian) class with more options, but fewer or less-powerful class abilities?&nbsp; Or are you looking for the versatility of a fighter with the class abilities of a Paladin?&nbsp; If the latter, perhaps Gestalt is the answer for you?I do like the generic class mechanism as well.&nbsp; Definitely breaks the D&amp;D archetypes, but I don't have a problem with that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nopantsyet, post: 1478154, member: 3109"] Driddle- While I can see your point, for me those classes are options in and of themselves. From a RP perspective, I see the monk and paladin as so focused and lawful that they don't necessarily [i]look[/i] for other options. And the barbarian as too chaotic to discipline himself to learn much else. But that's a flavor explanation for a mechanic, which probably isn't a satisfying response to you. On the other hand, there's nothing to say you cannot make a "Paladin" whose actual class is a fighter or a ranger, maybe with a level or three of cleric thrown in. As I interpret the way the mechanics are balanced, power and options are inversely proportional. The sorcerer knows fewer spells that a wizard, but can cast more flexibly, etc. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. And these three classes do have some pretty powerful class abilities; so I believe few options is there precisely for balance. Following this idea to its logical conclusion, would you be satisfied to see a Paladin (or monk or barbarian) class with more options, but fewer or less-powerful class abilities? Or are you looking for the versatility of a fighter with the class abilities of a Paladin? If the latter, perhaps Gestalt is the answer for you? I do like the generic class mechanism as well. Definitely breaks the D&D archetypes, but I don't have a problem with that. [/QUOTE]

Verification