Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EUREKA! THE ULTIMATE CROWN JEWEL OF CLASS ARCHTYPES!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6203613" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>Quite simply, there is not a "huge difference." There just isn't. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion with so deliberate an avoidance of fundamental comprehension. But I will listen to[read] the rest of your argument. *shrug* Maybe something will click.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Most people" not including, obviously, yourself. You want to see a distinction between saying "I can [make magic happen]" and "I know how to [make magic happen]." that warrants separate classes. </p><p></p><p>There isn't one. They simply do not.</p><p></p><p>How 'bout this...Are Fighter and Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger separate because one "can [use weapons]" and another "knows how to [use weapons]"? No. </p><p></p><p>Or, perhaps the more direct question/example would be: Do a Cleric of a God of Healing and a Cleric of a God of Battle warrant separate classes because one "can [pray to my god for magic powers]" and the other "knows how to [pray to my god for magic powers]?" Or even a Cleric of a pantheon vs. a Cleric of "beliefs/ideals" (i.e. in a game world where deities don't exist or religion is not broached)? They are all Clerics.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, basically, all this goes away if I simply change the premise definiton of Wizard classes to be "they use magic" and drop the "knowledge." Then, all of the sudden, you're on board and it makes sense to you?! SOLD! Done. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>*rolls eyes* Yes, I <em>amended</em> what I said originally from "who handles things primarily with" to the verb "to use". My bad for this obviously confusing change. Don't know what I was thinking.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Excellent! So we're all clear and good then. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What second instance? I only use the term knowledge once. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Mmmm. No. No it doesn't. You are reading implications into the term that are simply not meant. The presence of "knowledge" in the class description is a literary symmetry that I enjoy. I wanted/needed two things that Wizards do...to mirror "weapons and toughness" or "skills and trickery." Hence "magic annnnnd...Ah! <em>knowledge</em>, I guess."</p><p></p><p>This does not somehow mandate "book knowledge." It does not put "natural know how" or "xyz Lore skills" in stone...it means they know stuff the other three class groups don't. Yes, all classes have knowledge of something...but the Wizard group, collective broad default being referred to as Mages, have knowledge about things the other classes do not and use this knowledge as a matter of course.</p><p></p><p>Not to get all bogged down in your invoking ["my view of"] the Druid, but maybe it'll help clear up...a Druid knows how to travel around in the wilds, knows plants and animals, can read the weather, etc... None of that, necessarily, and certainly not explicitly says "academic" or "erudite" knowledge. Experience, yes certainly. Training or tutelage, perhaps. Books and research, perhaps...though in a druid's case I'm inclined to think not. But they have specialized knowledge of topics that other classes don't. </p><p></p><p>Lemme ask...if I had instead said "magic and intelligence" would we be having this issue? I suspect so as we'd just be arguing over the term intelligence since "[everyone knows] Sorcerers are Charisma-based casters and by that [obviously] deserve their own class." </p><p></p><p>"...magic and their minds..." ? "...magic and reason..." ? "...magic and <em>occult</em> knowledge..." ? "...occult <em>experiences</em>..." ?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not conflating anything. You are...whatever the opposite of conflation is...deliberately and despite all argument to the contrary, when I am saying, point blank, repeatedly, "You <em>can</em> make all of the sorcerer characters you want. Alllll different <em>kinds</em> of sorcerers, if you like. They are not sufficiently different an archetype to warrant their own class, so they go [here]." </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have a very limited patience for "fantasy magic people should be like this cuz in the real world..." arguments. Not to put too fine a point on it...This kind of thing doesn't matter/apply to the creating or organizing of classes.</p><p></p><p>If a game presents me with a class: "Driver." What they do in the game is "drive."</p><p></p><p>And, then, a separate class: "Vehicular Facilitator." What they do in the game is..."drive." <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></p><p></p><p>I'm setting it on fire. The "know how" vs. the "know why" are irrelevant. What the how or why <em>do</em> is the same.</p><p></p><p>Bottom line, for me, this kind of "example" is not productive to these sorts of discussions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes. Yes there is. Under my chart you and he both go under the Wizard group umbrella...who's default class is a Mage. Now, you and he can each "build" mages with different fluff to explain your driving ability. OR you can build something and call it a Wizard and he can build something and call it Sorcerer. But you're still sitting inside that dark blue box, because you are both drivers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Soooo...you can do the same thing or not [which still, I assert is merely fluff for spell-casting], but you can't have them considered within the same class group?</p><p></p><p>And absolutely NO WHERE IN HERE did I make, what I am assuming you mean, "[book-learning] wizard" the default. Again, you have distinct blinders on/bias against the term (as you insist on having with "knowledge").</p><p></p><p>Used here, quite clearly I thought, the Wizard <em>class group</em> is those classes which rely or<em> use</em> or "handle things primarily with" arcane magic/spells. The class group, as defined is the broadest of those archetypes, inclusive of all types of arcane magic-users who are not filtered with some abilities/skills from other classes.</p><p></p><p>That's allllll "Wizard" or "Mage" is here. Colored with books, wands, at will, cuz mommy was a dragon, or dancing naked under a moon...it's all the same shtick. That's what they do, how they take on adventuring.</p><p></p><p>And no, I'm not now conflating "the how" and "the what." They're "what they do" and "how" are two different ways of saying the same damned thing.</p><p></p><p>Best I can do for you...and those who agree/think like you, would be (since I guess it isn't obvious) change the "Witch" type, applicable to all of the spellcasters in the Wizard quadrant, to "Sorcerer" as one could argue an "innate [arcane] spellcaster" can be made out of any of those class archetypes (that are actual archetypes warranting their own class).</p><p></p><p>Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go delete "knowledge" from the initial post so this can all go away and we need not ever speak of it again. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6203613, member: 92511"] Quite simply, there is not a "huge difference." There just isn't. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion with so deliberate an avoidance of fundamental comprehension. But I will listen to[read] the rest of your argument. *shrug* Maybe something will click. "Most people" not including, obviously, yourself. You want to see a distinction between saying "I can [make magic happen]" and "I know how to [make magic happen]." that warrants separate classes. There isn't one. They simply do not. How 'bout this...Are Fighter and Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger separate because one "can [use weapons]" and another "knows how to [use weapons]"? No. Or, perhaps the more direct question/example would be: Do a Cleric of a God of Healing and a Cleric of a God of Battle warrant separate classes because one "can [pray to my god for magic powers]" and the other "knows how to [pray to my god for magic powers]?" Or even a Cleric of a pantheon vs. a Cleric of "beliefs/ideals" (i.e. in a game world where deities don't exist or religion is not broached)? They are all Clerics. So, basically, all this goes away if I simply change the premise definiton of Wizard classes to be "they use magic" and drop the "knowledge." Then, all of the sudden, you're on board and it makes sense to you?! SOLD! Done. *rolls eyes* Yes, I [I]amended[/I] what I said originally from "who handles things primarily with" to the verb "to use". My bad for this obviously confusing change. Don't know what I was thinking. Excellent! So we're all clear and good then. B-) What second instance? I only use the term knowledge once. Mmmm. No. No it doesn't. You are reading implications into the term that are simply not meant. The presence of "knowledge" in the class description is a literary symmetry that I enjoy. I wanted/needed two things that Wizards do...to mirror "weapons and toughness" or "skills and trickery." Hence "magic annnnnd...Ah! [I]knowledge[/I], I guess." This does not somehow mandate "book knowledge." It does not put "natural know how" or "xyz Lore skills" in stone...it means they know stuff the other three class groups don't. Yes, all classes have knowledge of something...but the Wizard group, collective broad default being referred to as Mages, have knowledge about things the other classes do not and use this knowledge as a matter of course. Not to get all bogged down in your invoking ["my view of"] the Druid, but maybe it'll help clear up...a Druid knows how to travel around in the wilds, knows plants and animals, can read the weather, etc... None of that, necessarily, and certainly not explicitly says "academic" or "erudite" knowledge. Experience, yes certainly. Training or tutelage, perhaps. Books and research, perhaps...though in a druid's case I'm inclined to think not. But they have specialized knowledge of topics that other classes don't. Lemme ask...if I had instead said "magic and intelligence" would we be having this issue? I suspect so as we'd just be arguing over the term intelligence since "[everyone knows] Sorcerers are Charisma-based casters and by that [obviously] deserve their own class." "...magic and their minds..." ? "...magic and reason..." ? "...magic and [I]occult[/I] knowledge..." ? "...occult [I]experiences[/I]..." ? I'm not conflating anything. You are...whatever the opposite of conflation is...deliberately and despite all argument to the contrary, when I am saying, point blank, repeatedly, "You [I]can[/I] make all of the sorcerer characters you want. Alllll different [I]kinds[/I] of sorcerers, if you like. They are not sufficiently different an archetype to warrant their own class, so they go [here]." I have a very limited patience for "fantasy magic people should be like this cuz in the real world..." arguments. Not to put too fine a point on it...This kind of thing doesn't matter/apply to the creating or organizing of classes. If a game presents me with a class: "Driver." What they do in the game is "drive." And, then, a separate class: "Vehicular Facilitator." What they do in the game is..."drive." :erm: I'm setting it on fire. The "know how" vs. the "know why" are irrelevant. What the how or why [I]do[/I] is the same. Bottom line, for me, this kind of "example" is not productive to these sorts of discussions. Yes. Yes there is. Under my chart you and he both go under the Wizard group umbrella...who's default class is a Mage. Now, you and he can each "build" mages with different fluff to explain your driving ability. OR you can build something and call it a Wizard and he can build something and call it Sorcerer. But you're still sitting inside that dark blue box, because you are both drivers. Soooo...you can do the same thing or not [which still, I assert is merely fluff for spell-casting], but you can't have them considered within the same class group? And absolutely NO WHERE IN HERE did I make, what I am assuming you mean, "[book-learning] wizard" the default. Again, you have distinct blinders on/bias against the term (as you insist on having with "knowledge"). Used here, quite clearly I thought, the Wizard [I]class group[/I] is those classes which rely or[I] use[/I] or "handle things primarily with" arcane magic/spells. The class group, as defined is the broadest of those archetypes, inclusive of all types of arcane magic-users who are not filtered with some abilities/skills from other classes. That's allllll "Wizard" or "Mage" is here. Colored with books, wands, at will, cuz mommy was a dragon, or dancing naked under a moon...it's all the same shtick. That's what they do, how they take on adventuring. And no, I'm not now conflating "the how" and "the what." They're "what they do" and "how" are two different ways of saying the same damned thing. Best I can do for you...and those who agree/think like you, would be (since I guess it isn't obvious) change the "Witch" type, applicable to all of the spellcasters in the Wizard quadrant, to "Sorcerer" as one could argue an "innate [arcane] spellcaster" can be made out of any of those class archetypes (that are actual archetypes warranting their own class). Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go delete "knowledge" from the initial post so this can all go away and we need not ever speak of it again. :cool: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EUREKA! THE ULTIMATE CROWN JEWEL OF CLASS ARCHTYPES!!!
Top