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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="empireofchaos" data-source="post: 6763165" data-attributes="member: 6800918">I'm just not sure if I share your optimism. If a class is just a set of interrelated mechanics (although, on what grounds do we assume that they are in fact interrelated), it can become clunky. Case in point - the recent ranger offering in the UA (not the very last one stalker archetype, but the "complete rewrite" with the 2d6, the Ambuscade skill, and the spirit animal sidekick). IMHO, that class was a holy mess, a jumble of different mechanics thrown together primarily to placate those people who think the 5e ranger is underpowered. Can an interesting character be developed on the basis of those rules? Sure. But would the adoption of the class, with no individual flavor (again IMHO) as a core class have hurt the game as a whole? I say yes, and so did the people who responded to the survey.On the other hand, the (relatively) recent accretions that have been successful - the sorcerer and the warlock - succeeded precisely because of the fluff, the identity. Sorcerers of a particular bloodline are surely aware of something like common descent. Whether the broader class is self-aware is a more open question, but the idea that arcane ability is passed down by blood is surely a commonly accepted one (I can even cite RL examples). Similarly, the warlock works with a pact concluded with certain powerful entities. Some which follow a particular one form into covens, and are surely aware of the source and general features of their power. Beyond individual covens, there is still a sense of the patron, and the idea of patronage generally (as there is in RL). The name for the relationship can differ - it's not a terminological or semantic issue. But the concept may be clear, and, given how initially amorphous groups form over time, they acquire concreteness, especially in areas where writing is widespread. So, once we've gotten together and discussed magical practices among ourselves, we've come to the conclusion that the way we do magic (through study and memorization, shaping wild energy, or concluding a pact) is not the way they do it.</blockquote>

Verification