D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[CroBob]

Why do classes need to be distinct? Isn't the goal to make characters who are unique?

You can make a character who's unique regardless what the mechanics say. Making a character is purely on the player. The classes as defined by the rules, on the other hand, is exactly that. What exactly is your point? Is it that the rules don't matter so long as you have a fun character? Sure, maybe. However, many people also desire characters who are mechanically relevant, too.

 

[Animal]

This depends on how the caster/mechanics division is handled.

IF the PHB says (probably more eloquently): wizards use vancian, sorcerers spell points, warlocks AED and clerics/druids spontaneous; but check with your DM becauce he may use an alternate system (see page XXX in DMG about alternate spellcasting systems) I'd be all for that. Every class is unique and the ability to swap them out is a DM option somewhere in the DMG.

I don't want: Pick your class (wizard, sorcerer, warlock), pick your casting method (Vancian, points, spontaneous or AED, check with your DM which system he allows). I'd like to see internal consistency be assumed, and DMs have to house rule it out if they choose to micromanage that much.

Choosing the default caster method should be on par with rewriting deities to fit your world, not step 7 in the PC creation process.

What if i told you both approaches are valid?
Your DM thinks that for internal consistency all druids will be spontaneous casters? All good.
Your DM wants to make different sects of wizards unique in their approach to magic? He can do that too.
Still can't see the problem.

 

[hanez]

The thing is, just how unique do classes actually have to be to be unique?

Go back to Basic/Expert for a second. There is virtually no difference, mechanically, between a Fighter and a Dwarf. .....


Why do classes need to be distinct? Isn't the goal to make characters who are unique?

You choose a fighter and a dwarf class to compare? Every class doesn't have to be different.. but some classes do. The system must allow different mechanics and not force them all in the same mold

Just how unique do classes have to be? How about as different as they were in ad&d or 3e?

 

[dd.stevenson]

So why do such superficial things matter so much to otherwise rational adults? I just... I can't wrap my head around this. Is it nostalgia? I'm not trying to be a jerk, or anything, I seriously don't understand this.

Personally I think it's clear that large swaths of our D&D community either never accepted the crunch/fluff division, or accepted it and then did not internalize it. Still others actually prefer fluff, and don't pay too much attention to the rules that accompany them. For these people, "re-fluffing" isn't something they want to be forced to do.

 

[FireLance]

I have previously expressed the view that anyone who is able to distinguish evokers, necromancers, illusionists, abjurers, conjurers, enchanters, transmuters and diviners in 2e/3e should have absolutely no problems distinguishing a fighter from a wizard in 4e.

And while it is true that characters in 4e have very similar power structures, it is inaccurate (or, at least, outdated) to say that they are the same. PH3 introduced the Power Point mechanic for psionic classes (except for the monk), Essentials had martial classes without daily attack powers, and the Skald bard from Heroes of the Feywild had a mechanic which essentially allowed for spontaneous use of daily powers from among his daily powers known. There are also variants such as the Executioner assassin's (from Heroes of Shadow) single encounter attack power and spell-slot like system for preparing daily poisons.

Now, some people might be of the view that these differences are not enough, or that that they did not show up early enough in 4e's product cycle, but I think it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that these differences exist.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So why do such superficial things matter so much to otherwise rational adults? I just... I can't wrap my head around this. Is it nostalgia? I'm not trying to be a jerk, or anything, I seriously don't understand this.

In a lot of cases, it was caused by reading the rules and getting the feeling of sameness from that. Then it never really was overcome by reality. Just as 4E plays better than it reads, it reads more homogenous than it plays.

 

[CroBob]

Personally I think it's clear that large swaths of our D&D community either never accepted the crunch/fluff division, or accepted it and then did not internalize it. Still others actually prefer fluff, and don't pay too much attention to the rules that accompany them. For these people, "re-fluffing" isn't something they want to be forced to do.

So then do such people think that a "Fighter" in Forgotten Realms should be mechanically different from "Fighters" in Dragonlance? Or any class, for that matter? I mean, they exist in totally separate realms of existence, they should be different if we follow this logic, no?

 

[Stormonu]

Lan-"anyone know what the range increments are for editor?"-efan

Consult page XX, though I think they use the rouge's attack table.

 

[dd.stevenson]

So then do such people think that a "Fighter" in Forgotten Realms should be mechanically different from "Fighters" in Dragonlance? Or any class, for that matter? I mean, they exist in totally separate realms of existence, they should be different if we follow this logic, no?

I have nothing but my own reasoning to back me up, but my guess would be they would answer "don't care" for all three questions.

My reasoning: an objection to a setting-agnostic rule book forcing you to re-fluff to get what you want does not imply an insistence that each setting be mechanically different.

Edit: On thinking it over, I assume you're asking specifically about people who have never accepted the crunch/fluff division. Imagine that you think every single word--whether it is crunch or fluff--is of equal import to the resolution of in-game conflicts. Why would this force you to demand different fighter crunch in Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms? Just thinking about it, I can't see any reason why it would. In fact, to such a person, different fluff would be just as good as different crunch.

 

[Manbearcat]

To put it bluntly, that's BS.

Just because people don't agree what mechanics should be put in place for each class doesn't mean every class should be cookie cut-outs of one another. The fact is, D&D is a game which includes classes. If the classes aren't different, there's no reason to have them at all instead of using a skill system. The mechanics represent the differences in story. They're how you translate the story into functioning mechanics, to use during actual game-play... which is necessary, since it's a game, and games are defined by their rules.

Unfortunately, the premise here conflates "mechanics" and "mechanical framework". The two are very distinct from one another as the mechanics are what "tells the story of the class" and gives distinction to the archetype. These mechanics are embedded in a mechanical framework; which is nothing more than a Gamist construct through which the mechanical payload is delivered to the class...its agenda is predicated upon expediency, coherency, and ease-of-use. Unification of that mechanical framework has the side-effect of making inter-class balance a more achievable goal.

Mechanical Framework (Mechanics)
HP (1d6 etc)
+ 1 to attribute (Str, Dex or Cha)
Proficiencies (All Finesse Weapons and Light Armor)
Attack Matrix (whatever it might be)
Expertise Dice Matrix (whatever it might be)
Maneuvers (these specific maneuvers that fit the archetype)
Interspersed Features (these specific features that fit the archetype)

Etc, etc. The Mechanical Framework is what @DEFCON 1 was referring to. Not the (Mechanics). The (Mechanics) are what marries the character to its default in-game story (archetype). As long as those are different (which they clearly are), then his point stands.