Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 9484621" data-attributes="member: 205">I would say that as a general principle in medium-heavy crunch games, that every layer of game mechanics should correspond to a layer of diegetic elements that are roughly analogous to each other.That's why I think most people prefer race AND class as opposed to race-AS-class, as an example.  Biological origin is a different diegetic concept than the skillset/identity/vocation of class, and people prefer that to have different mechanics.  (Since I know you're aware of them, ACKS racial classes I would classify as "race AND class with restrictions".)Most of the familiar D&D classes represent a chosen vocation and observable skill set with some kind of supernatural backing; it's generally obvious within the fiction for standard D&D settings if someone is a "cleric" or a "wizard" or even a "bard".  The only classes that break that paradigm are fighter, rogue, and possibly barbarian and ranger depending on how you view their identity.  I'd rather simply see any class that is a "class" be as recognizable as "druid" or "wizard" is.The game is about characters with classes; mundanes who don't have classes are simply NPCs who might grow and become more skilled, but they don't "level" like a classed individual does.</blockquote>