Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6006936" data-attributes="member: 70709">I agree, the extent of the connections is key.  So how can you possibly acknowledge that something as simple as "adventuringness" is a component of both classes, but then conclude it has nothing to do with "the extent of connections"?  It is, on its very face, a connection.  The only way I find I can parse your logic without contradiction is to define "class concepts" such that commonalities are already excluded.  If so, we have not agreed in substance, because my whole argument is that we must consider both commonalities and distinctions.  The totality of them, so much as that is possible."Principally focused" isn't specific enough to make a good distinction given two classes with the same principal focus, but it is a fine statement of connection.  For example, spellcasters are "principally focused" on casting spells, yet interact with them in different ways. (And something similar applies to the even more general category of "magic user").  Casting spells is a good conceptual connection between classes, and one with essentially universal recognition.  This does not determine the degree to which magical mechanics are different or shared, but I hope you agree it informs them.  The same idea applies, in my opinion, to the fighter and war priest.If it is a physical weapon attack I consider its interaction with the game to be "martial."  No more or less.  (I regret not saying so in my first post, because I think it has hindered our mutual understanding of each other's positions).  So for me the issues of training, "power source", background, etc. are immaterial to my usage of that term.  Don't misunderstand me: I think those aspects are important, and worthy of mechanical distinction, but I don't think they automatically rule out mechanical similarities any more than they require complete mechanical dissimilarity.  With that in mind, the fact that every creature in D&D can interact martially with the environment, and many do so chiefly, suggests to me it is worth exploring some commonalities beyond rolling a d20 plus weapon damage.Yes, but even if ED were the "common language" of martial interactions it does not mean that any class must interact with them as class features, it just means that all should be able to use them. (That the fighter actually does so as a class feature, of course, would be uncontroversial.)  I wouldn't want to shoehorn ED into the paladin or rogue any more than I would into the wizard.  I think all should be able to work with that system, however.For example, if a wizard somehow gains ED (e.g. from a warlord) then the wizard can use them in a few default ways because ED might be part of the entire weapon-fighting system, just like attack and damage rolls.  A Paladin, although a frequent user of martial effects, might not depend on ED at a fundamental level.For example, suppose the Paladin were based around a "virtue" mechanic, maybe a series of "virtue skills" with a skill bonus that depends on the devotion demonstrated by the paladin.  The paladin must roll one of its relevant virtue skills whenever it wants to gain an effect, and the power of the effect is determined by the roll.  Maybe a Paladin with the virtue of "Courage" wants to power an aura of fearlessness, and the roll determines the save bonus vs. fear effects.  Maybe "lay on hands" using the Courage virtue would be an effect that heals and grants a target a new saving throw against a fear effect currently affecting it.  And finally, maybe the Courage virtue could be used to power the smite ability, where paladin rolls a Courage check and gains ED based on that check to use on an attack against a creature that has used a fear-based effect or the intimidate skill in the fight.In the past this smite would simply be bonus damage, but in this version of the Paladin it might be a means for extra damage, for powering a maneuver gained from multiclassing into a class that focuses on ED, for powering a special divine-only maneuver, or for interacting with some other effect. (Perhaps a cleric spell that lets every ally transfer their own ED to creatures who follow the same deity, in which case the paladin could effectively "pass" the smite to an appropriate ally.)I think such a Paladin could potentially meet the thematic and design goals you listed, really embracing a unique class mechanic distinct from ED, despite interacting with the ED system through the smite ability.  I'm interested in ED for its mechanical flexibility, not so I can put it at the very center of every class that uses weapon attacks.</blockquote>

Verification