Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6767335" data-attributes="member: 16814">I disagree archetypes become meaningless.&nbsp; I just don't define archetypes by class, but by function.&nbsp; A classic Arthurian knight is sworn to a lord or ideal, wears armor, follows a chivalric code, rides horses, and display puissant skill at arms.&nbsp; That could be a paladin class, a fighter class, a barbarian with some feats -- I don't see any reason to restrict a class to one fiction or have a fiction only be playable by one class.I've never been super happy with argument by dictionary, but 'broadly defines' is exactly what I allow.&nbsp; The class doesn't determine the vocation, but the skills and abilities you gain from the class broadly define what you do do.&nbsp; Again, I don't require that a player must fit a specific fiction just because he picks a class.&nbsp; That's far too limiting for me (and my group), and I'd rather not sit at a table as be told I can't play a Franciscan monk that uses the barbarian class and describes rage as channeling the might of their god.&nbsp; I wouldn't like being told that I can't because barbarians can only be wildmen from a savage tribe.Again with this 'it's my interpretation or go play a different game'?!&nbsp; Seriously, can you not conceive of a situation in which a group likes the broad grouping a skills and abilities as being easy and fast to use, but also creative enough to be able to reflavor them for their games?Funny, and I think I recall that you're not a 5e guy, but an older edition guy, right?&nbsp; Backgrounds aren't like that at all.&nbsp; And, as for what defines what a character does as an adventurer, what exactly is wrong with the answer, &quot;the player?&quot;&nbsp; You seem to want it to be the game, fixed and rigid, that has that answer.&nbsp; I let my players tell me what kind of adventurer they want to be.Eh, I'm sorry that it doesn't trigger your imagination like it does ours.&nbsp; I can't help that.&nbsp; But I certainly don't think that you should be trying to shove people that don't have a problem imagining new fictions for classes into a box of 'plays the game wrong.'&nbsp; I'm not doing that to you, so, maybe, some reciprocity is in order?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6767335, member: 16814"] I disagree archetypes become meaningless. I just don't define archetypes by class, but by function. A classic Arthurian knight is sworn to a lord or ideal, wears armor, follows a chivalric code, rides horses, and display puissant skill at arms. That could be a paladin class, a fighter class, a barbarian with some feats -- I don't see any reason to restrict a class to one fiction or have a fiction only be playable by one class. I've never been super happy with argument by dictionary, but 'broadly defines' is exactly what I allow. The class doesn't determine the vocation, but the skills and abilities you gain from the class broadly define what you do do. Again, I don't require that a player must fit a specific fiction just because he picks a class. That's far too limiting for me (and my group), and I'd rather not sit at a table as be told I can't play a Franciscan monk that uses the barbarian class and describes rage as channeling the might of their god. I wouldn't like being told that I can't because barbarians can only be wildmen from a savage tribe. Again with this 'it's my interpretation or go play a different game'?! Seriously, can you not conceive of a situation in which a group likes the broad grouping a skills and abilities as being easy and fast to use, but also creative enough to be able to reflavor them for their games? Funny, and I think I recall that you're not a 5e guy, but an older edition guy, right? Backgrounds aren't like that at all. And, as for what defines what a character does as an adventurer, what exactly is wrong with the answer, "the player?" You seem to want it to be the game, fixed and rigid, that has that answer. I let my [I]players [/I]tell me what kind of adventurer they want to be. Eh, I'm sorry that it doesn't trigger your imagination like it does ours. I can't help that. But I certainly don't think that you should be trying to shove people that don't have a problem imagining new fictions for classes into a box of 'plays the game wrong.' I'm not doing that to you, so, maybe, some reciprocity is in order? [/QUOTE]

Verification