Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8419327" data-attributes="member: 7006">Your choice of three classes is just as arbitrary as any other number.&nbsp; Why three?&nbsp; Why not two classes-- spellcaster and non-spellcaster?&nbsp; Why not four-- warrior non-caster, warrior caster, expert non-caster, expert caster?The reason why the game doesn't do this is because those definitions only define one or two things about the character... and they are both related to what game mechanics they will have-- Whether they fight well or not, and whether they use magic or not.&nbsp; But there's nothing in those things about who they are.&nbsp; Why they do what they do.&nbsp; What is important to them.&nbsp; How do they do what they do.&nbsp; Basically anything that defines them as a character.At least when we get up to the point we have in 5E with the 12 classes there are a lot of words written about all those things.&nbsp; Definitions becomes more more set.&nbsp; We know the story of the Cleric and how it is different than the Monk is different than the Wizard is different than the Barbarian.&nbsp; Now there's not as much differentiation between two Barbarians... but that is where the Subclasses come in.&nbsp; You add Subclasses and the definitions become even more individual (for the most part.)&nbsp; And then even more individuality then comes down to the players then creating personalities for their individual characters to separate one Wildfire Druid from another Wildfire Druid.But to me... any grouping that is made purely due to game mechanics being their defining reason for the division doesn't really serve a useful purpose in my opinion because we really don't need it.&nbsp; We don't need the game to put all Full Spellcasters into one bucket just to tell us they are the Full Spellcasters... we pretty much can get that just by looking at them.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8419327, member: 7006"] Your choice of three classes is just as arbitrary as any other number. Why three? Why not two classes-- spellcaster and non-spellcaster? Why not four-- warrior non-caster, warrior caster, expert non-caster, expert caster? The reason why the game doesn't do this is because those definitions only define one or two things about the character... and they are both related to what game mechanics they will have-- Whether they fight well or not, and whether they use magic or not. But there's nothing in those things about who they are. Why they do what they do. What is important to them. How do they do what they do. Basically anything that defines them as a character. At least when we get up to the point we have in 5E with the 12 classes there are a lot of words written about all those things. Definitions becomes more more set. We know the story of the Cleric and how it is different than the Monk is different than the Wizard is different than the Barbarian. Now there's not as much differentiation between two Barbarians... but that is where the Subclasses come in. You add Subclasses and the definitions become even more individual (for the most part.) And then even more individuality then comes down to the players then creating personalities for their individual characters to separate one Wildfire Druid from another Wildfire Druid. But to me... any grouping that is made purely due to game mechanics being their defining reason for the division doesn't really serve a useful purpose in my opinion because we really don't need it. We don't need the game to put all Full Spellcasters into one bucket just to tell us they are the Full Spellcasters... we pretty much can get that just by looking at them. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification