Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6765115" data-attributes="member: 2067">This is part of what makes tight fiction-mechanics marriage especially good for newbies. Giving a strong character concept that is then reinforced with mechanics makes the wall o' rules mastery much less intimidating, and gives them a strong character type to anchor to. In the hypothetical world where I DM'd your setting, I would want my Guild Mages and my Thaumic Knights to be classes or subclasses or maybe feats or a faction I could get rewards from or some sort of mechanical heft that I can use to express the archetype. I might say "If you want to take the Enchanter or Abjurer subclass, you'll need to work the Guild Mages into your narrative somehow. If you're going to be an Eldritch Knight, you're going to be linked to the Thaumic Knights." You then get closer fiction-mechanics reinforcement, where Guild Mages are known to have a hypnotic gaze that they teach to promising adepts that allows them to diffuse tense situations to protect their charges, and Thaumic Knights inscribe their name on a chosen sword that then comes to them when they call. Then, when the party finds a blade in the back of the King with a name scribed upon it, they've got an instant in-world association and have a place to start looking.Note that I said it was generally so for me, that in my experience it develops the play experience better, and that I find that it does.I wasn't criticizing your preference. You're welcome to offer a counter-anecdote, but you can't tell me what my experience is. If you presume I'm an honest actor, you should accept that this is my experience. If you don't presume I'm an honest actor, you should probably not be talking with me! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> This is part of why I say that more abstract/dissociated mechanics tend toward classless systems (and would actually include 4e in that bucket by some definitions, though that's a bit of a tangent). If the mechanics really aren't telling a particular narrative, then there's no real reason for them to be locked into a particular class (even one as broad as "magic-user" and "fighting-man"), and you should just be able to get the numbers right and then apply whatever fluff you want to it. Like, it takes 4 hits to kill a monster equal to your level, you hit on a 9+ on a d20, and PC's are KO'd after 10 hits between "rests." Every 2 levels' difference adds +/- 1 to the d20, every 5 levels' difference adds +/- 1 to the hits someone dishes out. Lets add some variety: three times per rest, you can "spike" your hit to make it count double. Everything else is description. That's a viable system! A bit bland, but well balanced and easily customizable (and not a bad core to hang a lot of more involved mechanics on). The more abstract the power, generally, the better fit it is for multiple concepts. If, instead of Counterspell, any character could take a "Negate" ability that simply cancelled out an ability of equal or lower level, that could be a counterspell, or it could be a kung-fu block, a shield bash, a brief stun from a lazer, the power of a Time Lord to turn back time a few moments and all sorts of things! But Counterspell is specific, limited by the fluff of a spell being different from a sword blow. If my own personal experience comported with WotC's findings more generally, then it would make sense for this to be an intentional choice by the team - they saw the more abstract "negate" choice, they saw the more concrete "counterspell" choice, and they chose the one that met their design goals more readily. There's plenty of variety, of course - lots of folks have specific roles for classes "except for fighters and rogues," it seems! As an aside, I kind of wonder if this is one of the keys to some of the perennial "non-magical is underpowered" complains that crop up - we have a clear vision of what we want a Wizard to do, or a Monk to accomplish. We don't necessarily know what we want a "Fighter" to do, or we all want different things. But a Knight! Or a Monster Slayer! Or a Commander! Or a Gladiator! THOSE are archetypes we'd see filled more robustly, with more agreement on how well it's doing one of those things. One class that does all those things can feel stretched thin - a class that did one of those things and ignored the others might be ultimately more satisfying.I tell ya, if I had mind-control powers over Mike Mearls... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification