Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7358108" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot;Why wouldn't classes define goals?  Does the fighter not fight?  The thief not thieve?  The wizard not...&quot;This basically IMO leans into a view of classes that came out of early classed RPGs where class was basicalky more or less synonymous with character. It worked well enough back then and for certain styles of play.For my groups, thru various systems, we have developed fondness for more robust and less limiting options as far as mechanical construction goes. DnD 5e seems to do a fairly strong representation of that with their less rigid link between class and character. You can build rogues who do not steal at all, but who play scouts, faces,&nbsp; even major combat types - &quot;fighters&quot; by another technique.You can take a variety of the sorcer or warlicks and create mystic warriors, not so much spell casters. Wizards can be alk over the place.Possibky the most robust are the clerics that can use race, domain and background to be as thiefy as the thieves or definitely grade a melee smackdown types.The &quot;character&quot; and their history and&nbsp; &quot;goals&quot; should (in our POV) drive the selection of the building blocks of class, race, background as welk as the play and choices going forward, not the reverse.But more to the point, i myself really dislike the idea of the GM defining player character goals by his interpretation of &quot;what a fighter is&quot; and hard coding that into the game mechanics. That, to me, crosses over a line between what things GMs should be defining and what the players should be defining. If a GM told me picking rogue class would hinge my rate of advancement to stealing... I would be very worried and strongly review what was discussed at session zero or have questions for session zero ready.Thats one of the reasons i prefer to separate &quot;goals&quot; from advancement and let &quot;goals&quot; get more actual in-game rewards than tie them to advancement. Lets the player not be hemmed in by *my* view of what their character ought to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7358108, member: 6919838"] "Why wouldn't classes define goals? Does the fighter not fight? The thief not thieve? The wizard not..." This basically IMO leans into a view of classes that came out of early classed RPGs where class was basicalky more or less synonymous with character. It worked well enough back then and for certain styles of play. For my groups, thru various systems, we have developed fondness for more robust and less limiting options as far as mechanical construction goes. DnD 5e seems to do a fairly strong representation of that with their less rigid link between class and character. You can build rogues who do not steal at all, but who play scouts, faces, even major combat types - "fighters" by another technique. You can take a variety of the sorcer or warlicks and create mystic warriors, not so much spell casters. Wizards can be alk over the place. Possibky the most robust are the clerics that can use race, domain and background to be as thiefy as the thieves or definitely grade a melee smackdown types. The "character" and their history and "goals" should (in our POV) drive the selection of the building blocks of class, race, background as welk as the play and choices going forward, not the reverse. But more to the point, i myself really dislike the idea of the GM defining player character goals by his interpretation of "what a fighter is" and hard coding that into the game mechanics. That, to me, crosses over a line between what things GMs should be defining and what the players should be defining. If a GM told me picking rogue class would hinge my rate of advancement to stealing... I would be very worried and strongly review what was discussed at session zero or have questions for session zero ready. Thats one of the reasons i prefer to separate "goals" from advancement and let "goals" get more actual in-game rewards than tie them to advancement. Lets the player not be hemmed in by *my* view of what their character ought to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification