Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6562581" data-attributes="member: 2067">Right, but all are quite distinct in play experience, in narrative, in ways that a lot of suggested new classes struggle with. And I'd challenge those fans to point out the mechanical distinction and -- the kicker for mechanically indistinct classes -- see if that distinction is enough to build a defining mechanic around. Presume the psion is essentially a full-caster a la wizards and sorcerers and bards and clerics, and give me what would define it as much as a spell book or sorcery points or bardic inspiration or domains define those other classes. Definitely not impossible, but if you can't do that, then, IMO, you're not earning your place in among the other classes. (Artificer, for what it's worth, suffers a similar problem with &quot;using a magic item&quot; and &quot;casting a spell&quot;)&quot;Coordinate Them&quot; = every time you spend a superiority die as a battle master, you are coordinating your party's movement (especially as higher-level battle masters hit more often on a turn and spend superioirty dice on more party members at once, getting more than just one other party member on board).&quot;Model Tactics&quot; = I don't know what this means mechanically if it doesn't mean &quot;move allies around the battlefield,&quot; which the Battle Master does. That's the challenge, of course - we need to get very specific about why &quot;I grant an ally the ability to move&quot; is not &quot;modeling tactics&quot; or &quot;coordination&quot;, or why &quot;I cast charm person&quot; is not &quot;I am a telepath who manipulates them into liking me with my brain.&quot; That's a challenge that most discussions I've had sort of peter out on. It's easy to say &quot;using a magic item is not the same as casting a spell!&quot; but it's harder to articulate really how or why, or when it's possible, it so far has wound up being something too small and fiddly to really build a whole class around like &quot;well, the rest of my party members could use it, too.&quot;I find a lot of the time it rests on particular prejudices -- so far, about what something like a wizard or a sorcerer or a fighter &quot;can be.&quot; The idea that a Wizard MUST BE a shy, retreating, bookish academic who faints at the sight of blood (and so cannot wear medium armor or carry a hammer or learn how to do manual labor like an artificer!) or that a Fighter CAN'T BE a charismatic, persuasive leader of troops, or that a Monk is NEVER a contemplative, introspective, transcendent magus. I'd challenge those prejudices before I rolled out a brand new class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6562581, member: 2067"] Right, but all are quite distinct in play experience, in narrative, in ways that a lot of suggested new classes struggle with. And I'd challenge those fans to point out the mechanical distinction and -- the kicker for mechanically indistinct classes -- see if that distinction is enough to build a defining mechanic around. Presume the psion is essentially a full-caster a la wizards and sorcerers and bards and clerics, and give me what would define it as much as a spell book or sorcery points or bardic inspiration or domains define those other classes. Definitely not impossible, but if you can't do that, then, IMO, you're not earning your place in among the other classes. (Artificer, for what it's worth, suffers a similar problem with "using a magic item" and "casting a spell") "Coordinate Them" = every time you spend a superiority die as a battle master, you are coordinating your party's movement (especially as higher-level battle masters hit more often on a turn and spend superioirty dice on more party members at once, getting more than just one other party member on board). "Model Tactics" = I don't know what this means mechanically if it doesn't mean "move allies around the battlefield," which the Battle Master does. That's the challenge, of course - we need to get very specific about why "I grant an ally the ability to move" is not "modeling tactics" or "coordination", or why "I cast [I]charm person[/I]" is not "I am a telepath who manipulates them into liking me with my brain." That's a challenge that most discussions I've had sort of peter out on. It's easy to say "using a magic item is not the same as casting a spell!" but it's harder to articulate really [I]how or why[/I], or when it's possible, it so far has wound up being something too small and fiddly to really build a whole class around like "well, the rest of my party members could use it, too." I find a lot of the time it rests on particular prejudices -- so far, about what something like a wizard or a sorcerer or a fighter "can be." The idea that a Wizard MUST BE a shy, retreating, bookish academic who faints at the sight of blood (and so cannot wear medium armor or carry a hammer or learn how to do [I]manual labor[/I] like an artificer!) or that a Fighter CAN'T BE a charismatic, persuasive leader of troops, or that a Monk is NEVER a contemplative, introspective, transcendent magus. I'd challenge those prejudices before I rolled out a brand new class. [/QUOTE]

Verification