But see i think it boils down to people feeling as if they are being done wrong if a company makes a game and says "warriors are not going to be high end casters, period". Its like thats the rules, like any other game...go back to the world of checkers, monopoly etc...the games had their rules and other games had their rules.

Now i know gaming is a bit different but in a general scheme of things just think of them as a rule that was set by the creator of the game.

Some games are open ended in what can be done with character creation, some are more strict...and as much as i understand the semantics of if someone saying that it makes no sense as a caster why i cant cluch the sword of power or something, but then in the same breath admitting that well they cant do much with it being they are casters. You then have to sit back and think, is it really going to affect the game if just within the rules you simply cant equip a huge sword on casters mainly due to why would they want too, they cant use it nor would want too.

As i said before...heres something i could accept. That at the start of a game everyone has the potential to be anything. But they cant be good at everything.

So if you wanted to be half caster/half swordsman then you will be great at neither but can do a little at both. If you want to be a full blown caster than you are just that and arent going to be able to equip a huge 2 hand axe or anything, but most likely daggers or staves. Straight up swordsman or weaponsmaster, same deal.

This way then it keeps everything into perspective, there is total choice but to keep things interesting there are restrictions on how good you will be if you float off your main course. Which i think is a fine way of keeping to tradtion of the RPG genre.