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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6099297" data-attributes="member: 2067">I feel like this is actually a misunderstanding of what I think WotC is intending "class" to mean in NEXT (which isn't the same as what it meant in 4e, and not even quite the same as what it meant in 3e), because I don't think it's about legacy (or else why chop Assassins, Illusionists, and potentially Sorcerers and Warlocks as unique classes?), and I don't think it's about an inclusive or exclusive angle, either -- it's not about trying to reduce the number of classes or increase the number of classes.It is about defining what your character is about.So, you can't make classes very generic -- not everyone who hits things is going to be a Fighter, because then the word doesn't effectively speak to how your character acts. It becomes more of an organizational thing. Which is fine, but not the most effective at defining your character: your "fighter" could be about anything!You also can't make classes very specific -- hitting things with bows and hitting things with light weapons and hitting things with two-handed weapons don't need to all be different classes, because then it becomes too limiting. My paladin can't use a bow well because that's not what paladins do, that's what rangers do. My fighter can't sneak very well because that's not what fighters do, that's what rogues do. That is also fine, but it isn't the most effective at defining what your character is about: your definition is narrow and exclusionary and sometimes distinctly arbitrary.Fighters, as WotC has conceived of them in NEXT, are about combat. They think about swords, they eat off of shields, they breathe clouds of arrows, they mull tactical approaches over in their dreams, they know an encyclopedia of flourishes and feints, they aren't afraid to get hit, they know where to plant their feet, and they view getting pointy things thrust at them as a lifestyle choice that they are comfortable with. Barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, even rogues -- these guys are not about combat. They might be fine for fighting, but that's not what they eat and breathe and live and absorb into their very being. War is not their be-all and end-all. They do not have intimate familiarity with the history and technology of killin' things. They are not defined by combat, they are not entrenched in the way of the warrior. They've got other paths to follow. In fact, that might be a useful metaphor: a path. A way. A trail. That's your class -- a journey to a destination. Or, perhaps, a set of tools -- your class is a thing you use to accomplish your adventuring tasks. In that view, the warlord and the fighter go by the same path, side by side. They both use the same tool -- combat. They travel next to each other. They are both about fighting. They define themselves by attacks, defenses, strategems, tactics, gambits, damage, and protection. To separate out "I am about combat as it involves aiding and abetting my allies" and "I am about combat as it involves doing things other than that!" is a distinction that leans to the narrow and arbitrary. That's different than separating out "I am about combat!" and "I am about self-perfecting enlightenment!", or "I am about combat" and "I am about the dangerous loss of control and freedom unfettered by society!", or "I am about combat!" and "I am about metaphysical justice and retribution!", or "I am about combat!" and "I am about an intimate knowledge of the wilderness and its inhabitants, the liminal space between the world and your village."Look at the other candidates to roll into other classes: Assassins, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Illusionists...they're all very close to the same paths that other classes walk (rogues and wizards). If you're designing a game that treats the concept of a class as a way to help define what path your character walks, those are all paths that are pretty much the same. I also think it's key to point out that not all classes are or should be created with the same flexibility in mind. The Core Four probably need to be very flexible. The optional classes less so. Okay, but so far, no one has been very effective at explaining to me why this is, other than "I like it that way.""Fighters can't do what warlords can do!" is just a circular argument, which is why my reply was "Sure they could." It's like saying "rogues can't do what assassins can do!" Anyone could do what warlords can do. Rogues could do what warlords can do. Wizards could do what warlords can do. Ninjas could do what warlords can do. Goblins could do what warlords can do.The relevant question in my mind is, "What should do what warlords can do?" Given that they walk the same path and use the same tools as a fighter (Combat), I don't see a solid reason why it shouldn't be a fighter. I mean, I don't see two threads a week from 3e fans decrying how the game is losing something deeply essential because the Sorcerer might be rolled into the magic-using class as a tradition, or from 1e fans about how the Assassin and the Rogue are nothing alike. What do we think we're losing when we can't call our character who can enable and magnify ally actions, who wears chainmail and wields a bow or a spear, who even gives HP back by inspiring allies, and who favors Int and Cha a "Warlord" on the character sheet and be in line with the RAW, but must instead call it a "Fighter"?Because I don't think we're talking about completely getting rid of anything that a warlord in 4e can do from the game (though some things, like inspirational healing, make better modules than core rules). We're just talking about maybe not making it a distinct character class.</blockquote>

Verification