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: 6761495" data-attributes="member: 2067">That's pretty classic refluffing, but I can't help but think that this is making do when there'd be a better way to represent that archetype with better class mechanics. Like, a "divine rage" archetype has existed in D&D for a while (I think even OD&D equated a kind of zealous nomad with berserkers), though the system hasn't always been great at representing it. It's just a missing niche - give a cleric or a paladin or a monk a rage (and perhaps swap armor proficiency for unarmored AC abilities), or give the barbarian a "divine" subclass (proficiency in religion, perhaps, and maybe something a little more magical than a berserker but on a divine path not a totemic one - an aura of blinding light? the ability to ignore terrain and walk on water? benefits for picking bludgeoning weapons or using unarmed attacks over greataxes?) and we'd be back to class matching archetype. I imagine my own experiences playing a "human" (water genasi) who could transform into droplets of rain (4e swarm druid). It was entirely functional, but it was also clearly kludged, and you could tell at the edges ("that's a lot of poison for a rainstorm..."). I'd much rather have played a mechanical class built to support that character archetype from the ground up, rather than beating other mechanics into shape. Not necessary, by any means, but still very valuable. You say "impossible," I say "it just doesn't have mechanics yet," and 5e fortunately makes it pretty easy to solve the no mechanics problem. As a system, it seems to generally prefer that answer to the "refluff" answer that I used to make a living rainstorm in 4e. I think I'm on board with that. It's not impossible to refluff, but I'd typically rather just make new mechanics for the thing, so that I've got the supported character I want, rather than some other character that I sort of need to squint at to see the one I envision.</blockquote>

Verification