|
Post by Death Even XIII on Jun 1, 2021 12:58:29 GMT -5
Of all the OD&D classes that were introduced in the various sources, which ones do you like, which ones do you dislike and why? What do you see as the pros and cons of having or not having them in your campaign? Fighting-Men Magic-Users Clerics Thief Paladin Ranger Assassin Ranger Druid Monk Bard Illusionist I am fine with all of them except for Monks, which are IMO poorly written and Assassins, which are really an NPC, they don't fit as adventurers unless your game is centered on an Assassins Guild and Bards since your jerkiest player usually takes a Bard and Illusionists because any Magic-Users can focus on Illusions as a player choice, you don't need a class for it, just play your mage like you want to and same with Druids, just play your Cleric as a nature focused cleric, no new class needed and Rangers, just play your Fighting-Man as a Woodland Nature focused Fighter and Thieves, aren't all the adventurers thieves. So I guess I am really good with Fighting-Men and Magic-Users and Clerics and Paladins as a hybird class of Fighters and Clerics.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Jun 3, 2021 0:29:59 GMT -5
Of all the OD&D classes that were introduced in the various sources, which ones do you like, which ones do you dislike and why? What do you see as the pros and cons of having or not having them in your campaign? Fighting-Men Magic-Users Clerics Thief Paladin Ranger Assassin Ranger Druid Monk Bard Illusionist I am fine with all of them except for Monks, which are IMO poorly written and Assassins, which are really an NPC, they don't fit as adventurers unless your game is centered on an Assassins Guild and Bards since your jerkiest player usually takes a Bard and Illusionists because any Magic-Users can focus on Illusions as a player choice, you don't need a class for it, just play your mage like you want to and same with Druids, just play your Cleric as a nature focused cleric, no new class needed and Rangers, just play your Fighting-Man as a Woodland Nature focused Fighter and Thieves, aren't all the adventurers thieves. So I guess I am really good with Fighting-Men and Magic-Users and Clerics and Paladins as a hybird class of Fighters and Clerics. I love the twisted way you wrote your reply. Have an exalt.
|
|
|
Post by Death Even XIII on Jun 4, 2021 20:35:55 GMT -5
I am fine with all of them except for Monks, which are IMO poorly written and Assassins, which are really an NPC, they don't fit as adventurers unless your game is centered on an Assassins Guild and Bards since your jerkiest player usually takes a Bard and Illusionists because any Magic-Users can focus on Illusions as a player choice, you don't need a class for it, just play your mage like you want to and same with Druids, just play your Cleric as a nature focused cleric, no new class needed and Rangers, just play your Fighting-Man as a Woodland Nature focused Fighter and Thieves, aren't all the adventurers thieves. So I guess I am really good with Fighting-Men and Magic-Users and Clerics and Paladins as a hybird class of Fighters and Clerics. I love the twisted way you wrote your reply. Have an exalt. Hey, I resemble that remark!
|
|