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: 6767992" data-attributes="member: 6800918">In both versions of the (less-than-aptly named) Oriental Adventures, the katana is statted differently than the longsword. And the scimitar and its permutations always are, also. Although there is no katana yet in the current rules, precedent seems to suggest that it will not qualify as simply a re-imagining of the longsword. Different stats for weapons, different stats for what should be different classes. Well, OK, the light sabre and chainsaw as longsword was always a bit of hyperbole, but the main point was always about the flavor. Surely there have been sci-fi crossovers as precedents, so the question of why my character can't have a light sabre statted as a longsword might come up. I myself have played in a D&D game (a very long time ago, granted) in which an NPC wielded a gas-powered chainsaw. Unsurprisingly, the NPC was a barbarian. Because, why not? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - they were barbarians who raged, weren't they? It wasn't a bad game, actually, but not something I personally would allow. Any more than I would allow katanas or tulwars (the later without prior discussion, anyway) into a Viking game.  Well, dunno - you read "class is more than a profession - it is a calling" as meaning "class is not a profession"; I read it as saying "it is a profession - and then some".I was hoping we had put semantics to rest. It's not whether you call yourself monk, bhikku, or whatever else. It's about recognizing some sort of a collectivity, and whether it is a profession in the way we think of it now, or closer to a group ethos grounded in text, teaching, divinity, etc. is situational. It's entirely conceivable that some parts of the collectivity disapprove of the ends to which other parts put their powers. But that doesn't mean they don't recognize them. Having them completely unrelated is kind of like "my calling is to be a shoemaker: I make and fix shoes" and "my calling is a cobbler: I make peach cobblers".Soldier is a profession, acolyte is a vocation, don't really agree on noble. But a lot of backgrounds are not - outlander, urchin, hermit, folk hero (peasant, really). In any event, if the backgrounds have their own calling, that's not an argument against class not having one. I never said background has no bearing. I said class becomes increasingly important, and background increasingly recedes - hardly the same thing. I think background is one of the best additions to the current system. But I don't agree that it obviates the need for class. Look at the arguments made wrt particular classes: we don't need the ranger anymore, he can just be a fighter with outlander background, and Survival, Animal Handling, etc. skills. I'm sure you've heard these, too. Well, that can really be extended to most other classes. Clerics with armor, weapons and spells? Make them into paladins, or land druids wit a specialty in healing, and an armor feat! And barbarians? Fighters with some sort of rage feat. So I don't see people telling you how to run your game - I see people worrying that these sentiments will become so pervasive that class begins to recede or disappear for those of us who want it in, especially those who want it in as a tangible thing.</blockquote>

Verification