Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant
Why "noble" barbarians? I would reverse your evaluations of fighters and rangers. Otherwise, something like that, yeah.
I've actually been toying with the notion of "savage" classes verses "civilized" classes. It seems to me that there are an awful lot of classes that can be paired up along those lines. Barbarians vs Fighters. Wizards vs Sorcerers. Clerics vs Favored Souls. And so on.
The story archetypes were not intended to be Roleplay constraints. they were simply there to explain my concept a bit better (which i realize i worded really badly)
My concept, was to build around the ideas presented in each short fluff a character class. Paladin is for instance looked at as the holy warrior, but then you have cleric, Favored Soul, crusader, Soulborn, and that psionics dude no one talks about. Giving each class their space, then building each class within that space to the achievement of the concept.
I think a duality of all the classes would be a bit limiting, and also not a preferable design decision: Wizards (Hard Work) are opposite Warlocks (buy a thesis), while sorcerers and favored souls are opposite themselves (sorcerers look on their power as a curse, gift, or tool).
Cleric and Wizard were replaced on my concept list not because they are bad in and of themselves, but because one is OP no matter what, and the other uses a mobile mountain to crush paladin's space into non-existance
Originally Posted by Yitzi
I think he's saying you need to be careful and systematic when writing the rules, so that you don't get loopholes such as one class's abilities boosting another class's spells and granting far more power than you intended.
actually, it is a note to remind them to right a high quality glossary, so Non-RAW terms like <Class> Spells become RAW, and slightly less broken. Battle blessing is a good example for a feat that gets more powerful the more you read into it. It applies to all spells you cast as a result of using rules that arent.