Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="squibbles" data-source="post: 8610770" data-attributes="member: 6937590">Man, thanks for the great and varied responses guys--one departing drastically from precedent and another doubling down on it.Thanks for being a good sport, it's all just a creative exercise in the end.I like the list of classes you ended with even though the class names weren't your focus--Warrior, Cleric, Shaman, Mage, Shadow, and Mystic--I feel like a lot of information is communicated by evocative names (my earlier comment about Shaman notwithstanding). "Defense-specialty Martial character" for example doesn't have quite the same oomf as defensive Warrior. Likewise, the MTG colors are super evocative with a lot of room for nuance.Awesome! Love the extra self-imposed restrictions, and all of your reasoning makes intuitive sense to me.And yet, the final list of classes--Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Wizard--feels odd from an a priori perspective. I would have never picked bard and monk for the final cut.</blockquote>