Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6069402" data-attributes="member: 7006">I'm with TwoSix on this one... why do the Cleric and the Wizard keep getting separated?&nbsp; As far as I can tell... they're both the same concept-- the spellcaster.&nbsp; They have different emphasis in their spell lists, yes... the Cleric mainly healing and buffing, the Wizard mainly damage-dealing... but they both behave the same way.&nbsp; They cast spells.&nbsp; That's their schtick.&nbsp; So if you're going to combine the Fighter and the Rogue into a single &quot;weapon-using&quot; amalgam... then you have to merge the Cleric and Wizard into a single &quot;spellcaster&quot; amalgam.But this is why I think trying to compartmentalize all these different classes into tiny, unique boxes is a completely futile exercise.&nbsp; Because no class IN ITS ENTIRETY falls into any box.It's been obvious for the Cleric since Day 1-- they are a spellcaster AND they are a martial weapon-user.&nbsp; But also... they now don't have to be based upon the domain/deity their worship and the types of spells they take.&nbsp; They can completely strip away their martial ability if they so choose.And what about Rogues?&nbsp; Half the people see them as martial characters because they do their damage in combat using weapons... half the people don't want them as martial &quot;Fighter-lites&quot; because they want their focus of the class elsewhere in the exploration pillar.&nbsp; But the thing is... the entire concept of a &quot;Rogue&quot; class is so wide and broad that different types of builds within the Rogue can fall into EITHER camp.&nbsp; The &quot;Dualist&quot; and &quot;Thug&quot; Rogues?&nbsp; Martial part of the Rogue.&nbsp; The &quot;Thief&quot; and the &quot;Charlatan&quot;?&nbsp; The exploration/interaction part of the Rogue.Which means anyone trying to say that the Rogue IS a martial character or IS NOT a martial character is simultaneously RIGHT and WRONG at the same time.The Wizard?&nbsp; People have wanted Martial Wizards for DECADES.&nbsp; Usually it meant multi-classing.&nbsp; Sometimes it was staying as a Wizard but taking a specific set of spells.&nbsp; In recent years it's meant designing new classes that are martial wizards from the get-go... or adding builds to the Wizards that allow for it like the Cleric always had.And need we forget that one of the biggest complaints of the Fighter in recent years has been their lack of skills?&nbsp; People have wanted their Fighters to move further into the interaction and exploration pillars moreso than the game has generally allowed them to (without again having to multi-class).&nbsp; But that means at some point... Fighters become &quot;Rogue-lites&quot;, don't they?&nbsp; And when you throw in the concept of the Warlord-warrior-- the buffing and healing type of Fighter that a large part of the gaming populace thought was a brilliant addition to the game... these &quot;boxes&quot; keep having their walls exploded.The idea of the &quot;Class&quot; was originally supposed to mean an archetype.&nbsp; And way back in the 70s and early 80s... those archetypes generally served us.&nbsp; But not anymore.&nbsp; Most players don't WANT a &quot;Thief&quot; archetype at the expense of all other roguish concepts.&nbsp; Most players don't WANT a &quot;Cleric&quot; archetype that is mainly a martial character that can cast a few heals spells at the expense of all the other types of Clerical concepts with regards to deities, domains and spells.&nbsp; There is no &quot;Fighter&quot; archetype anymore... players want the &quot;soldier&quot; archetype, or the &quot;berzerker&quot; archetype, or the &quot;brawler&quot; archetype, or the &quot;archer&quot; archetype, or the &quot;swashbuckler&quot; archetype.Like it or not... I think 95% of most players want the idea that D&amp;D is actually a class-less (or archetype-less) system... while maintaining the trappings of classes.&nbsp; Because god forbid anything appear in these classes that don't allow the player to do whatever the frak they want in designing and illustrating the character they have in their head.&nbsp; And all of us who continually try and put these classes into &quot;boxes&quot; keeps that from happening.So we should just stop it.&nbsp; And finally admit that &quot;Class&quot; is two separate things-- it is a Story that describes what kind of ability a particular PC has within the fiction of the world... and it is a set of Game Mechanics that we use to illustrate those abilities.&nbsp; And they are SEPARATE THINGS.&nbsp; And any attempt to merge the two together into a cohesive whole results in a whole heap of people GETTING PISSED OFF.&nbsp; Because one person's &quot;Sneak Attack defines the Rogue&quot; is another person's &quot;Rogues should try and avoid combat at all cost&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6069402, member: 7006"] I'm with TwoSix on this one... why do the Cleric and the Wizard keep getting separated? As far as I can tell... they're both the same concept-- the spellcaster. They have different emphasis in their spell lists, yes... the Cleric mainly healing and buffing, the Wizard mainly damage-dealing... but they both behave the same way. They cast spells. That's their schtick. So if you're going to combine the Fighter and the Rogue into a single "weapon-using" amalgam... then you have to merge the Cleric and Wizard into a single "spellcaster" amalgam. But this is why I think trying to compartmentalize all these different classes into tiny, unique boxes is a completely futile exercise. Because no class IN ITS ENTIRETY falls into any box. It's been obvious for the Cleric since Day 1-- they are a spellcaster AND they are a martial weapon-user. But also... they now [I]don't have to be[/I] based upon the domain/deity their worship and the types of spells they take. They can completely strip away their martial ability if they so choose. And what about Rogues? Half the people see them as martial characters because they do their damage in combat using weapons... half the people don't want them as martial "Fighter-lites" because they want their focus of the class elsewhere in the exploration pillar. But the thing is... the entire concept of a "Rogue" class is so [I]wide and broad[/I] that different types of builds within the Rogue can fall into EITHER camp. The "Dualist" and "Thug" Rogues? Martial part of the Rogue. The "Thief" and the "Charlatan"? The exploration/interaction part of the Rogue. Which means anyone trying to say that the Rogue IS a martial character or IS NOT a martial character is simultaneously RIGHT and WRONG at the same time. The Wizard? People have wanted Martial Wizards for DECADES. Usually it meant multi-classing. Sometimes it was staying as a Wizard but taking a specific set of spells. In recent years it's meant designing new classes that [I]are[/I] martial wizards from the get-go... or adding builds to the Wizards that allow for it like the Cleric always had. And need we forget that one of the biggest complaints of the Fighter in recent years has been their lack of skills? People have wanted their Fighters to move further into the interaction and exploration pillars moreso than the game has generally allowed them to (without again having to multi-class). But that means at some point... Fighters become "Rogue-lites", don't they? And when you throw in the concept of the Warlord-warrior-- the buffing and healing type of Fighter that a large part of the gaming populace thought was a brilliant addition to the game... these "boxes" keep having their walls exploded. The idea of the "Class" was originally supposed to mean an archetype. And way back in the 70s and early 80s... those archetypes generally served us. But not anymore. Most players don't WANT a "Thief" archetype at the expense of all other roguish concepts. Most players don't WANT a "Cleric" archetype that is mainly a martial character that can cast a few heals spells at the expense of all the other types of Clerical concepts with regards to deities, domains and spells. There is no "Fighter" archetype anymore... players want the "soldier" archetype, or the "berzerker" archetype, or the "brawler" archetype, or the "archer" archetype, or the "swashbuckler" archetype. Like it or not... I think 95% of most players want [I]the idea[/I] that D&D is actually a class-less (or archetype-less) system... while maintaining the trappings of classes. Because god forbid anything appear in these classes that don't allow the player to do [I]whatever the frak they want[/I] in designing and illustrating the character they have in their head. And all of us who continually try and put these classes into "boxes" keeps that from happening. So we should just stop it. And finally admit that "Class" is two separate things-- it is a Story that describes what kind of ability a particular PC has within the fiction of the world... and it is a set of Game Mechanics that we use to illustrate those abilities. And they are SEPARATE THINGS. And any attempt to merge the two together into a cohesive whole results in a whole heap of people GETTING PISSED OFF. Because one person's "Sneak Attack defines the Rogue" is another person's "Rogues should try and avoid combat at all cost". [/QUOTE]

Verification