Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Camelot" data-source="post: 5566154" data-attributes="member: 82617">Delericho said it best. They have invented a subclass system, where the original classes were each one subclass of their overall class. So, why would the original fighters be called only fighters while Essentials has two more classes: fighter (knight) and fighter (slayer).&nbsp;Though I don't agree with your last idea, Delericho.&nbsp; Superclasses would be too broad.&nbsp; Why would a warrior only be fighters, knights, and slayers?&nbsp; Aren't paladins warriors too?&nbsp; Would wizards and mages be spellcasters, and if so, what would sorcerers and swordmages be?&nbsp; And how would they come up with that many names that encompass the original class when that was what the original class name was meant to do?&nbsp; &quot;Fighter&quot; and the other class names already encompassed a wide variety of character types: fighter included great weapon, guardian, battlerager, tempest, brawler, gladiator, and probably more.&nbsp; It makes sense to have it be the superclass name, from a design standpoint and an in-game view.&nbsp;When you say, &quot;I'm a cleric,&quot; you now need to specify what you are. You can either say, &quot;I'm a warpriest cleric&quot; or &quot;I'm a templar cleric.&quot; They are naming the old classes to avoid people having to say &quot;I'm a cleric, the one from the Player's Handbook,&quot; because that is not what they are in the game world. I think it is a good decision, and fun, because I like names.&nbsp;Since there are no clerics in Dark Sun, I don't think that will be a problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Camelot, post: 5566154, member: 82617"] Delericho said it best. They have invented a subclass system, where the original classes were each one subclass of their overall class. So, why would the original fighters be called only fighters while Essentials has two more classes: fighter (knight) and fighter (slayer). Though I don't agree with your last idea, Delericho. Superclasses would be too broad. Why would a warrior only be fighters, knights, and slayers? Aren't paladins warriors too? Would wizards and mages be spellcasters, and if so, what would sorcerers and swordmages be? And how would they come up with that many names that encompass the original class when that was what the original class name was meant to do? "Fighter" and the other class names already encompassed a wide variety of character types: fighter included great weapon, guardian, battlerager, tempest, brawler, gladiator, and probably more. It makes sense to have it be the superclass name, from a design standpoint and an in-game view. When you say, "I'm a cleric," you now need to specify what you are. You can either say, "I'm a warpriest cleric" or "I'm a templar cleric." They are naming the old classes to avoid people having to say "I'm a cleric, the one from the Player's Handbook," because that is not what they are in the game world. I think it is a good decision, and fun, because I like names. Since there are no clerics in Dark Sun, I don't think that will be a problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification