Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7489736" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Consider the Fighter's primary ability, Extra Attack. It works via the Attack Action, which in turn permits one to make Weapon Attacks. If you wanted to refluff the Fighter as a spellslinger, you'd have to either redesign the Attack Action to work with Spell Attacks, or redefine Weapon Attacks to include spells. Considering that either would be a major overhaul of the game's underlying mechanics, I'm comfortable claiming (if somewhat hyperbolically) that the Fighter's mechanics are &quot;inextricably&quot; tied to their use of weapons.By contrast, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who aspires to have his tribe join civilization rather than shunning it as a form of weakness. For that matter, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who is already part of civilization and has no ties to &quot;barbarism&quot; whatsoever. So I see absolutely no reason that the Barbarian's mechanics are tied (let alone inextricably) to a belief that civilization is a form of weakness.I agree with you on the Warlock, because the patron is an NPC and thus a part of the setting. But I disagree with you about the Paladin. I see the nuances of each Paladin's Oath as an idiosyncratic manifestation of the Paladin's underlying conviction, rather than as a setting-specific price that must be paid for power. One could certainly design a campaign world in which an Oath is a price, or each Oath has only a single Knightly Order, just as one could design a campaign setting in which every Wizard was first a formal apprentice to an NPC, or every Barbarian is a member of a fixed list of tribes, or any number of other setting-specific tie-ins. But I don't see the Paladin (unlike the Warlock) as having a setting-specific tie-in by default.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 7489736, member: 6802765"] Consider the Fighter's primary ability, Extra Attack. It works via the Attack Action, which in turn permits one to make Weapon Attacks. If you wanted to refluff the Fighter as a spellslinger, you'd have to either redesign the Attack Action to work with Spell Attacks, or redefine Weapon Attacks to include spells. Considering that either would be a major overhaul of the game's underlying mechanics, I'm comfortable claiming (if somewhat hyperbolically) that the Fighter's mechanics are "inextricably" tied to their use of weapons. By contrast, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who aspires to have his tribe join civilization rather than shunning it as a form of weakness. For that matter, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who is already part of civilization and has no ties to "barbarism" whatsoever. So I see absolutely no reason that the Barbarian's mechanics are tied (let alone inextricably) to a belief that civilization is a form of weakness. I agree with you on the Warlock, because the patron is an NPC and thus a part of the setting. But I disagree with you about the Paladin. I see the nuances of each Paladin's Oath as an idiosyncratic manifestation of the Paladin's underlying conviction, rather than as a setting-specific price that must be paid for power. One could certainly design a campaign world in which an Oath [I]is[/I] a price, or each Oath has only a single Knightly Order, just as one could design a campaign setting in which every Wizard was first a formal apprentice to an NPC, or every Barbarian is a member of a fixed list of tribes, or any number of other setting-specific tie-ins. But I don't see the Paladin (unlike the Warlock) as having a setting-specific tie-in by default. [/QUOTE]

Verification