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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6762637" data-attributes="member: 16814">While I agree that 5e is, by far, the easiest system to date to make mechanics changes, and i certainly do that when it's called for, I'm still stuck with the need to even further set in that a class means exactly this and nothing else, fiction-wise.  My primary axis of query on this is the fact that NPCs presented in the game material have no classes.  They may have similar abilities to some classes, sometimes, but they are not members of any class.  They are titled according to what the creators envisioned their roles were to be in the game when made, but I've no problem taking the Bandit King, for instance, and using it as a guard captain.  But, yet, given this immediate flexibility in refluffing archetypes on one side of the screen (perhaps you do not do this, in which case I apologize for the assumption) the rule for players is to adhere to the fluff already attached to character classes -- no changes allowed unless you build a new class/archetype.Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, just that you do it differently from me, and I'm trying to understand the thought processes involved in something different.  I agree that, quite often, a reskin of a class to a match up with a different that designed archetype isn't always clean (monks and languages, frex), and that the better solution there is to mechanically alter the class.  But I don't see the need to take that freedom and then use it as a reason that the published archetypes need to be locked in stone for game fiction purposes.</blockquote>

Verification