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: 6780112" data-attributes="member: 6800918">Here's the thing: sometimes, words actually mean what they say. I don't say, anywhere, that people who choose to interpret class as a set of mechanics are stupid, that they shouldn't disagree with me, or that they only think they're having a great time, when really they're not. I don't say for the simple reason that it's not my meaning, so if thanks are to be pleaded for, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.I've said all along that the choice of viewing class as an archetype vs. viewing it as a cluster of mechanics is an aesthetic one. It hardly follows from that that those who don't accept my aesthetics are stupid. But it does follow that people who make aesthetic choices one way or the other make them for a reason. And if I reason out my aesthetic choice by hypothetically adopting the opposed position (which I reserve the right to do), I can try to think through the consequences of doing that. And if I saw class as clusters of mechanics because I approached the rules and in-game fiction in a more free-form way, I would likely want to increase my options, and those of my players, and to have the rulebooks explicitly reflect this increase by showing me and my players the best ways to do that.Oh, and the Grand Druid was very much a member of the druid class (Unearthead Arcana, pp. 16-17). He even received an additional d8, and was the "ultimate overseer of druidic activity".</blockquote>

Verification