Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6048892" data-attributes="member: 7006">Well, it's not like going the opposite way pleases anyone either.  ;-)Look at this situation:  4E specifically said that you were meant to refluff and jigger classes as needed to get the experience you wanted.  Every class was defined by a role, defined by how and when and why they did what they did, and if you wanted something different... you were supposed to find another part of the game you liked and adapt it to what you wanted.  The rules didn't  give you specific methods for doing that... but rather just for you and the DM to use your best judgement.So if you wanted to play an archer... you were supposed to use the mechanics of the Ranger, because that was the class with the mechanics for ranged exploits.  And if the fluff of the Ranger wasn't your style... the game said to change the fluff (and the occasional skill or whatever) to get you what you wanted.But we then heard a veritable shatstorm of complaints from players saying that they didn't want to play Rangers, they wanted to play Fighters.  And the game wasn't allowing them to.  And no, refluffing and changing the Ranger to be a Fighter didn't help.  They wanted a Fighter with archery, and that was the end of it.So here was an example of a game making those concrete decisions about what a class was and how it defined your character... and the game getting crapped on because of it.  Because the problem is... as I pointed out in the post you quoted... those "concrete decisions" only are any good if you happen to agree with the decision that was made.  If they make a decision that you happen to disagree with... then the rule or mechanic is a P.O.S. regardless of how well it was crafted or how "concrete" or "character defining" it was.  If you don't like it, then it does you no good.It seems like what WotC is trying to do is get everything "character defining" pushed into the fluff of the class as much as possible.  If the fluff can give you as much of a sense of a particular class... then you don't have to rely on the mechanics to do it.  Which is important, because we see all over the place that nobody can agree on what mechanics define a class (or even more importantly... a quality game experience.)  If the Wizard can be defined mainly through its fluff... then it doesn't matter if a DM and players in a particular game have 3 different spellcasting mechanics to choose from to assign to the Wizard to use (whichever set of mechanics they happen to think is the most fun to play and helps support the fluff.)Why should that lessen the Wizard's character definition that those who want to use Vancian casting can do so, while those who want to use spell points can do so, while those who want 'encounter-based' spell refresh can do so?  The only way it doesn't is if you actually think to yourself that because other tables can play their Wizards in a way you don't think they should play... that somehow lessens the Wizard in your own eyes.  That if a spell-point Wizard might actually exist somewhere, then obviously the Wizard isn't well-defined in your eyes and thus the game somehow suffers.  THAT kind of self-centered thinking is something that I think all of us need to grow up about.</blockquote>

Verification