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: 6765030" data-attributes="member: 16814">Cool.  I don't have such narrow groups in my game, nor are there enough classed people to warrant such specialization.  I have broad groups that focus on broad concepts, like Guild Mages, that hire out to provide enchantments and abjurations, specializing in protecting spaces and persons.  Membership open to whoever has applicable skills, including a number of on hand physical security experts and testers which are often reformed criminals sporting no ability to cast magic.  Or the Thaumic Knights, who focus on all the ways of combining magic with martial skill.  People would know and recognize members of these organizations by their dress or heraldry, but not necessarily by their skill.  Certainly not by the fact that they have an expanded crit range.  I don't think that would be noticeable without long term observation.I disagree that this is so generally so.  If you strip the fluff and look at just the mechanics, you have a wealth of options that don't necessarily fit within the default fluff.  Like the Franciscan-esque monk that channels the might of his god in battle being a barbarian class, but not the barbarian fluff.Well, nothing changed except for some mechanics.  Wouldn't make much sense that your magic wand of perforation kept working in an anti-magic field, for instance.  But you could probably make those work.  Perfectly fine, if the DM thinks it works in his game.  I'd have to give those some thought and work through some ramifications to make sure they balanced out okay, but there's nothing wrong with the concept*.  Sounds a bit neat, really.  If someone did come to be wanting to use the fighter chassis to build an upclose and personal magic user (like that one build in D3) I could let that fly.  I didn't think of it before you mentioned it, which is exactly why I keep my door open for such things.*Except for the Faerie Fire -- how do you talk invisible things into be visible with your tactical knowledge?  But that's turning a wizard into a fighter -- another interesting exercise, but not for me right now.Yes, 5e shies away from mechanically similar powers.  That doesn't cut against my thinking, though, because I'm not looking for mechanically similar powers, I'm looking for abilities that fit a concept even if they need to be re-explained a bit.  Like the not-barbarian (actually totally a barbarian!) not-Asian monk.I'd like to step away from the claims that you have a more developed play experience.  You have no idea the level of my play experience, or the depth and variety of my currently campaign.  I'll admit I've run some shallow things in the past, but I don't see how treating your classes as having specific origins automatically means you have a more developed play experience.  My game doesn't have that laser focus on class origin points because I find it more useful to have organizations based on shared outlooks and goals, not common skills.  So I will thank you not to presume that your way results in better experiences.  No, it doesn't.  Again, you are assuming that the characters in my game are player by players that only see them as bags of mechanics.  That's how we tend to look at classes, but our characters are quite round and full without needed the anchor of a commonly shared fiction with other members of the character class.  They're quite well tied into a deep and vibrant background tapestry by way of their families, the organizations they belongs to, the city they inhabit, the quest they are on, and in discovering the hidden histories of the world they live in.  I don't feel the need to have common origins for classes -- I don't build my game around explaining where or how the character classes exist.  I assume that characters exist and have abilities, but where they come from and how they express those abilities is largely up to the players to envision and tie into the game world.  And they do and deeply.  So, again, please drop the assumption that your playstyle achieves a greater depth than one that doesn't do what you do.  I'm quite sure you have a deeply rewarding narrative that backs your game, and I don't think that because you do class fictions differently that you must also have a somehow deficient narrative.  It's just different from mine, and I like that there's room for both of us to do it how we like.  There is no better way to play.</blockquote>

Verification