Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JonWake" data-source="post: 5830653" data-attributes="member: 95255">I think what we have here is another example of the divide between the older conception of classes as 'archetypical' and the newer conception as 'skill package'.People who like archetypical explanations of classes like having the game fiction intrinsically tied into their character progression.  A mage builds towers, a fighter builds strongholds, a thief runs a guild. To them, the class isn't just role to play, its a role in the game world.  The upside of this is that the rules and the fiction of the setting become deeply tied together. The downside is that its a limiting way to play a game, and very quickly leads to class bloat. On the other hand, the 3e-4e view of classes is more of 'skill packages', a loose conglomeration abilities that can be mixed and reskinned to create highly individualized builds. It's no fluke that character optimization became all the rage in the past 10 years, because 3e onwards is built to make it a feature.  I really don't think you'll ever get these two viewpoints on the same page. I personally have gone from simply accepting classes as 'how it's done' (back in 2e) to actively refusing to play a class based game (ah, the 90's) to trying to square the circle (my 3.0 enthusiasm) to realizing that if you water down classes to nothing, you lose a lot of what makes them work in game.</blockquote>