Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kannik" data-source="post: 8951565" data-attributes="member: 984">.... I am at a loss as to what in heck I must be typing that has it be seeming to you that I'm recommending that there's only 1 defender type of any type that can and must only use a single mechanism such that the power source becomes a useless description.  What?  Not in the heck no!  There would still be a wizard, sorcerer, warlock, fighter, paladin, ranger, cleric, druid, seeker, warden, swordmage, artificer, warlord, elementalist, psion, etc, and they would still operate in different ways and perform their roles in different ways that fully engage their power source in sweet and cool ways.  One of the biggest things I love (and miss) about 4e was the amazing flavour of the different classes in how they used their power source to meet their aims.  I would not change that.Let me try again to be totally clear:  Everything I'm proposing would still have roughly the same 25 base classes that 4e has now, and each would continue to be their unique expression.  What I'm proposing is only additive, by way of introducing the new layer of Profession to the equation.  And I will disagree with you here when you say, "making it so anyone wanting "wilderness survival" goes to the one-stop shop of Theme-town—is that that "Wilderness Survivor" theme must be separate from everything else their character is."  To which you seem to be saying that you can't have any connections between Role, source, or Theme?  Why not?  Why can't a Druid, who gains their strength from their deep connection to the Primal forces of the landscape, not be able to tie that into how they are a Wilderness Survivor/Ranger?  Why couldn't a Fighter, who has been born from the school of hard knocks and who knows how to get up into someone's face and survive, couldn't tie that back into how they are a Wilderness Survivor/Ranger?  Why couldn't an Elementalist, who, having  to learn from birth how to channel their conduit of the raw elemental chaos from birth, escaped into the wilderness so they wouldn't hurt anyone, and therefore couldn't tie it into how they are a Wilderness Survivor/Ranger? I think those would all be awesome characters to play and stories to explore and RP.  There's nothing generic about it.  Nor is there anything anything awkward about it.  And I think you would even agree with me, since you go on to say, when talking about Themes, that "each class can be mechanically distinct and tailored to a particular set of class fantasies, while still supporting players who want something else or who don't want some of the baggage that comes with a particular class."  Exactly.  You can be that mechanically distinct class tailored to the class fantasy of the nature-infused warrior (be that a Druid or a Warden) and then choose how your character uses that in the world -- Traditional nature defender (ie traditional Druid)?  Thornwatch member (ie Ranger)?  Scout for a band of do-good outlaws (ie Robin Hood)?  Guide for merchant caravans traversing between points of light?  (Not that I would get rid of theme either -- there's some juicy possibilities in there as well that I wouldn't try to shove into profession.)To use your example from near the bottom of your post, "without having to force players who want to be musical performers... to specifically be Bards," YES, exactly!  If the player wants to be a musical performer they can be whatever class they want to be!  And then they choose Artist or Performer as their profession.  And they'll be even better at it than how it is in 4e now, because the profession will not only have the performance skill but also would have abilities that relate to the performance aspects.  At the risk of being overly dramatic at this point, I will reiterate:  what you're railing against is not what I was saying / trying to say and create.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The character's class continues to play the major role in defining the character, and the classes can continue to be deliciously varied and interesting.  What I'm encouraging is for 4e to lean even more into where it was already headed and add one more layer so that there there is MORE coolness, more uniqueness and distinction, more combinations, more RP, and more awesomeness throughout.  (Seriously, I think we're mostly aligned here in what we want.  And I'm happy to quibble and work out the best way to achieve that!  But first this misunderstanding needs to be cleared up so that there's not pushback against a notion that I'm not even close to putting forth.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )</blockquote>

Verification