Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="B.T." data-source="post: 6077971" data-attributes="member: 84465">Mechanics should reflect what they are trying to represent.  If the fluff of the rogue's power is that you're backstabbing someone, then the mechanics should reflect backstabbing.  That could mean a variety of things--from only applying while physically behind someone to simply attacking when the target is unaware--but it needs to represent what it claims to represent.  It's about being able to associate what happens mechanically with our expectations in-game.Suppose we were to eliminate an armor bonus to AC and instead gave everyone a bonus to AC based on class and level.  Armor is now a texture painted on the models.  Does fighting guards wearing chainmail mean anything?  Does telling your players that the knight is wearing plate armor indicate anything about his wealth, status, and likelihood of beating you up?  Does telling your players that the noble is wearing robes let them know he's vulnerable to physical attacks?  No, it means nothing.  Everything is just a sprite in the gameworld.You are telling me that I need to be more inclusive of other playstyles while disregarding my own playstyle.If fluff is mutable, then by your own admission your objections to the barbarian class don't matter.  The implied background of the barbarian doesn't matter.</blockquote>