Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="squibbles" data-source="post: 8249095" data-attributes="member: 6937590">I see the issue differently but would agree with you that it is a problem.The degree of fantasy associations and world-anchoring vary greatly by class. Some classes are painfully tied to an aspect of the world, like paladins having an oath that's treated as a class feature. Others are not. As you say, for example, fighters are straightforwardly generic. There is NOTHING in their base kit that grounds it in a wider context; it has a preferred manner of fighting (fighting style), has grit (second wind), is decisive (action surge), is resilient (indomitable), and fights well (extra attacks up to 4)... that's it.Every other class is given loads of flavor, though the conventional view holds otherwise.(only picking on [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] because he stated the conventional view so succinctly)Looking at the rest of the core four:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizards have to study books to learn magic--why should magic involve books, that's not necessary, is it? Most historical people who believed in magic didn't assume that to be true.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rogues have diverse technical training, but all of them can pick locks, disarm traps, and very seriously injure combatants who aren't paying attention--those things kind-of go together, but how do you build a D&D character who is great at skills but not sneak attacking (or magic)? Such people presumably exist and can have adventures.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Clerics--yeesh--why does a man of god wear medium armor and deter zombies? That's hopelessly specific.</li> </ul>----So, having buried the lead, my view is that classes should be partitioned--not unlike the way the PHB partitions common and uncommon player races.Generic classes and subclasses would compose one group (fighter, specialist, magic user), which would make as few assumptions about setting as possible and could, presumably, be slotted into almost anything.Flavorful and thematic classes and subclasses would compose a second group (or multiple groups), anchored to a broader setting which they support and which supports them--or, at least, tied to a broad genre of fantasy which they fit--i.e. keep that high magic kitchen sink shenanigans out of Ravenloft and Darksun, please, thank you.But, of course, that ship has sailed.Forcing a homebrew setting to accommodate monks, paladins, warlocks, and druids by printing them as universal classes in the PHB is also limiting. Not that your point is incorrect... but just sayin'  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />As 5e is constructed, I like thinking of classes as metagame building blocks too.But the reason for that is that WotC manifestly does not treat them as fiction agnostic. Paladins have oaths, warlocks have patrons, and druids aren't allowed to wear metal armor. You can ignore these class features if you like (I often do), or handwave them ("my druid's breastplate is made from bones, honest"), but they aren't meant to be.Some classes, by design have lore that matters while others don't.</blockquote>

Verification