Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8418939" data-attributes="member: 5142">Once again... I don't entirely agree with you about this. I don't think it's simply a matter of STORY ONLY rather than mechanical divisions. The 3e Sorcerer was not designed around its story, but, rather, its mechanical division with the prepared-casting of the Wizard. It was mechanics first design rather than story first design. A story was created for the mechanical design of the class created. In truth, there wasn't much story on the Sorcerer at first. Its story was gradually refined and built on top of the class in 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder before its present fluff in 5e. Moreover, 4e demonstrated to me was that additional stories for classes were able to open up precisely because of the mechanical divisions that they made. The Warlord is the obvious case here. For me, it was a real "where have you been all my life?" moment when I read through it in 4e. The story and concept for the Warlord was able to exist because of the mechanical-conceptual space for it: i.e., Martial Leader. Likewise, that's how I felt about a few other new classes whose stories got to emerge precisely because of the mechanical divisions: e.g., Avenger (Divine Striker), Shaman (Primal Leader), Warden (Primal Defender), etc. Moreover, 4e was really the first edition, IMHO, that really drove home the difference between being a Nature Cleric vs. being a Druid. There was both a mechanical and conceptual space created by establishing the Divine vs. Primal divide.</blockquote>

Verification