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: 6780594" data-attributes="member: 6800918">The precedent of past editions of the game is important, and it is important for both sides of the argument, albeit for different reasons. It is important for the "class is real" side because we are able to show a long-term continuity of class being recognized as as real, and argue on this basis that the current edition builds on this precedent (and not just that of a single edition). It's important for the "class is metagame only" side because they can say they are comfortable with the precedent as understood by most players, but can play around with builds simply because following the text of the rules too closely is too confining and gets boring. So here is how class is defined in the various editions of the game (excepting B/X and its various permutations. OK, no definition given here or anywhere else. Inconclusive - could be interpreted either way. Moving on.. That's pretty unequivocal. I don't know how many times it has been claimed in this thread that class is not a profession, but here it is, in black and white. It doesn't literally say "and the character is aware of belonging to this profession", but obviously, that is (putting it mildly) a much more warranted inference than "but that doesn't mean the character is aware of it." Onward: So, here is an explicit comparison between D&D and real world professions, which people who belong to them are very much aware of, and in which, during the course of training, they obviously interact with others who belong to it as well, and recognize them as such. Continuing in the profession vein, and underlining the centrality of class to the character.And now - att'n!  The first sentence is certainly possible to interpret as referring to powers and not to identity - but only if you ignore the second sentence, which says that class is not any old profession, but a calling, the overwhelming driving force in the character's life. A calling is by definition something you hear (physically, or at least spiritually), thus, something that registers, something you are aware of.5e I've already quoted earlier on, and it essentially says the same thing:  It has real effects in the world, and shapes peoples thinking and outlook. There is no suggestion that it does so unconsciously.So there is a very long thread in the game that conceptualizes class as a real category in the game world. It didn't have to be that way, and it could easily have developed the notion that class is just a bundle of mechanics. Something along these lines:This is from the 4e PHB 2 (p. 30). Now, this characterization is clearly much more in tune with what you are arguing - it's about the crunch, and its impact on combat. There is no suggestion here of class as a profession or any sort of social category that a character can identify with.And that's the problem, from my perspective. If the long-running precedent had been build around this notion of class, class would indeed have no in-game concept. And then, it seems clear that people would either demand to have rules which allow them to design their own congeries of mechanics (called classes), increasingly more classes (which 4e did in fact deliver in numerous PHBs), or, they would begin to lose interest in a game that increasingly diverged from the class-centered game of earlier editions. Which is in fact what happened - people went elsewhere, but many of them came back once the new edition appeared (though obviously, there were numerous other reasons for the defection and return as well).For my part, I don't know if I would stick with a game like 4e (I was kind of on gaming hiatus during those years), precisely because the class-centeredness was exchanged for something that is quite a bit closer to a skill-based system, and, without putting words in people's mouths, I have the distinct sense that a lot of people who like 5e better than 4e think a long the same lines. But if you want to see class in a more 4e framework, that's fine. I agree with those who say that's similar to houseruling alignment out of bounds (something I've done before, and still do de facto).</blockquote>

Verification