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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6764901" data-attributes="member: 996">Ironically, the AD&D level title for a 1st level fighter was 'Veteran.'   5e's 'Apprentice Tier' isn't quite consistent that way, true.  A guild craftsman might have a lot of mundane experience, a solider have seen some fighting, while a monk or wizard may have many years of formal training, while a Sorcerer might have woken up with magical powers yesterday.  Newly-minted adventurer may or may not be young & inexperienced, just new to adventuring.It is true that there are a lot of very good games that don't use classes, though.  That argues to classes being something more than just a meta-game construct, since you can do everything a class does in a mechanical sense without resorting to such a limiting construct....That's a legitimate question.  IMHO, by the time 3e evenly-advancing classes and multi-classing rules came around, the idea that a class was just a bundle of mechanical abilities and thus no more IC than your number of hps or the length of a round.  Making the assumption that there is IC-awareness of game mechanics is actually kinda hilarious - OotS for instance.  Terry Pratchett did much the same kind of thing for the genre D&D is based on.  What's interesting is that you actually can take the OotS/Pratchett IC attitude and play it seriously instead of for laughs.  I guess it's one of the perks of D&D as the grandaddy of all RPGs.  In any other game character classes would just be a klunky mechanic that doesn't model characters from genre very well, but since they've been in D&D so long, they've become de-facto archetypes and professions, defined parts of an eccentric sub-genre of fantasy.</blockquote>

Verification