James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I used to have this issue too, wonder where it got off to?
And one last one, then I'll stop gushing. I promise.
And one last one, then I'll stop gushing. I promise.
Is he described as wearing plate mail there? I believe the 3.5 description was magical half plate.He's an NPC in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, though!
Reskinning NPCs involves different issues than refluffing PC stuff.Point being, you can fluff it because it's not really super important whether it's plate mail or splint mail or some other kinda armor. It -looks- cool, and that's enough.
I've inserted bolded numbers to label the two suggestions.So the best way to fix this is (1) to break the link between class and specific cultures and (2) to break the link between classes and specific ability scores.
Yeah. It does tend to be weird. I remember reaching that point in 4e with paragon paths. We were encouraged to refluff them if the fluff didn't match - but then what if the fluff of one does match but it's just mechanically weaker (or you just don't like the particular mechnical representation)?I'll take that under advisement if I actually think about doing that sometime.
Actually, its not intended as a strawman at all. I was in a game this was allowed and everyone started wanting to take the best option and refluff as something else. One person wanted to use great sword stats, but say they were wielding a dagger... Which is why we dont allow it anymore.
Isn't this the same thing? If we're reskinning and refluffling why wouldn't you be choosing a Paragon Path purely for it's mechanics? The mechanics are the part you have to live with.At that point, I guess you present it to the DM and see what they think. Most Paragon Paths seemed pretty good to me, but I'm sure there had to be some that didn't make the grade.
I honestly had more problems with people taking Paragon Paths that didn't really suit their character, but granted a power boost they wanted. Like we had a Sorcerer who started dabbling with demonic powers because they really wanted Demon-Soul Bolts as an encounter power (and didn't seem to care much for the rest of their Path).
That's close to how Pathfinder 2 does it.I think it’d be good if the light armours had the dex bonus uncapped representing a better chance to dodge, perhaps with the very light armours some classes (bard rogue ranger, maybe fighter too) getting inherent advantage to AC checks while wearing those lightest armours to represent their talent in dodging (other classes require a feat for advantage), whereas the heavy armours have two AC values, a lower one that functions regularly as it currently does and a second higher AC that alows you to take half damage, indicating a lesser capacity to dodge completely but a higher rate of the armour protecting from receiving serious injuries.
Medium armour functions as it currently does, with a capped dex bonus, it has a higher AC than the lower AC range of a comparable heavy armour but not reaching as high as the half damage AC threshold
My reasoning for bringing up (2) is that the Wis/Con to AC could be seen as an extension of a wider topic of ability scores and ableism, which when mixed with the cultural issues (1) could create that sense of essentialism. Suffice to say, there are some arguments to be made with how ability scores interact with classes, but that's a topic far larger than what is broached. I bring it up because a divorce of primary ability scores from class would, in theory, fix the issue. Your idea of redoing Unarmored Defense to fix the MAD element of it is a good example of removing the emphasis of on ability score modifier in class features, the switch from Ability Score Mod/Day to Proficiency Bonus/Day is another.I've inserted bolded numbers to label the two suggestions.
Number (2) I'll leave alone. My OP talks about specific ability scores feeding into particular class abilities but doesn't make a more general claim. Whether it's better to have wizards be stat-neutral, or instead to have wizards, sorcerers and warlocks as we currently do to allow various magician builds around various stat combos, I don't know: there's a lot of D&D tradition in there and I don't know if it's all bad.
The first one I'll tackle. I personally don't think all associations between class and cultures are objectionable. Paladins evoke romantic notions of mediaeval knighthood - they don't have to be confined to that, but that's where they start. For me at least, Monks evoke Tai Chi Master and The Bride With White Hair and Hero - again, they don't have to confined to that, but it's where I start from.
But there is a difference between presenting a trope or an archetype, and buying into a stereotype. Maybe you're suggesting the line is so fine, or sufficiently subjective, that it's better to try and step right away from the issue?