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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="slobster" data-source="post: 5998789" data-attributes="member: 6693711">This is exactly it, in my opinion. RP and world-building wise, I can call the "wizard" class whatever I want. I can call them alchemists, or wu-jen, or psychics, or benders, or contractors. I can backfill the fluff to match whatever I want. So if WotC is going to all the trouble to make a new base class, then they should focus on making it mechanically distinct from anything that came before.I understand that they will give it an identity of its own, complete with presupposed ways that it fits into WotC campaign products and so on. That's fine, I can ignore (or use) that with little effort. But the problem with reskinning a class and calling it something new (3.x shugenja/shaman/wu jen I'm looking at you <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />) is that, once I peel back the new paint job, I'm left with . . . the same classes I've seen before. I can repaint my own classes. So what exactly was I paying for?But if the class mechanics underneath are new and shiny and distinct, then after stripping away the superficial paintjob I still have a class that I can use. There is still value. For all that ranting, 5E does look like it's proceeding nicely in this regard. So far, each class feels and plays distinctly. As long as we get a paladin who is actually different from a fighter, and not just fighter with a few cleric spells tacked on, I'll be quite happy.</blockquote>

Verification