Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DragonLancer" data-source="post: 1478656" data-attributes="member: 11868">Interesting thread. As a DM and as a player, I'm more than happy with the way the classes are presented in the D&amp;D system. Each class has strong and weak points, and thats kind of the point - game balance. The fighter is the main combat class. He gains feats that make him better and better in a fight as he levels. He's none too good outside of that with skills and such. The barbarian and monk are also combat classes but with twists. The barbarian represents not a &quot;barbarian person&quot; but more a warrior who focuses on instinct rather than trained skill as a fighter does. With its rage and some other class abilities, its not really possible to recreate with another class hence one reason for it.The Monk is just an unarmed combatant. Its possible to create a pretty good unarmed warrior with just the fighter class. The point of the Monk is to allow that with a few extra powers.The Paladin represents (depending how you view the class) a holy warrior or someone touched by the gods of good. To represent that, the class does not get the fighter feats but gains something different - the clerical style abilities for instance.The core classes are balanced towards one another. One class gains feats, another gains special abilities. A third gains spells but lacks both the feats and skills of other classes. So its not a case of a class lacking options, but more a case of a class having different options.Its late, so I hope that makes sense.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DragonLancer, post: 1478656, member: 11868"] Interesting thread. As a DM and as a player, I'm more than happy with the way the classes are presented in the D&D system. Each class has strong and weak points, and thats kind of the point - game balance. The fighter is the main combat class. He gains feats that make him better and better in a fight as he levels. He's none too good outside of that with skills and such. The barbarian and monk are also combat classes but with twists. The barbarian represents not a "barbarian person" but more a warrior who focuses on instinct rather than trained skill as a fighter does. With its rage and some other class abilities, its not really possible to recreate with another class hence one reason for it. The Monk is just an unarmed combatant. Its possible to create a pretty good unarmed warrior with just the fighter class. The point of the Monk is to allow that with a few extra powers. The Paladin represents (depending how you view the class) a holy warrior or someone touched by the gods of good. To represent that, the class does not get the fighter feats but gains something different - the clerical style abilities for instance. The core classes are balanced towards one another. One class gains feats, another gains special abilities. A third gains spells but lacks both the feats and skills of other classes. So its not a case of a class lacking options, but more a case of a class having different options. Its late, so I hope that makes sense. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification