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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6127564" data-attributes="member: 70709">That's true, but there is a distinction, though not a clear-cut one, between how one does things (in terms of mechanics) and what one does (in terms of the non-mechanical fiction.)  I probably ought to have used the same term (how/what) for both statements so I could highlight that I meant a mechanics vs. non-mechanics distinction, and not a context-free noun vs. verb.  And while in principle just about anything could have corresponding mechanics, I'm mostly talking about the mechanics that D&D has found fit to enshrine in its classes.  (In more free-form systems like FATE, where the "Baker" aspect might have a gameplay significance as great as combat abilities, I readily grant your point.  In fact, the FATE fractal pretty much embraces that viewpoint to its full extent.)  A background like Baker could be consistent with numerous classes or no class at all, and I think it would be difficult to write a D&D class that encompasses what one might mean by Baker without setting down some pretty arbitrary restrictions on what it means, and how it meaningfully affects the outcomes of events in D&D.  This is why something like an Assassin background would be so powerful -- it speaks to a non-mechanical role (or at least one with many and varied mechanical implementations) in a sufficiently generic way that almost any class could take it.Heh, well, it wouldn't be the first time. <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=":)" />  My intention is not to force the mindset of simulation, however, despite my use of "represents" many times in the original post.  (It's true I do want consonance between story and mechanics, but which of story or mechanics might bend to fit the other isn't my concern here.)  Whether one uses simulationistic mechanics or not, the division of labor between backgrounds, classes, and feats I suggested is designed to give each element mechanical distinction since mechanical distinctions can be discerned objectively while story distinctions are subjective and often nebulous.  I accept that there are many story representations of Assassin that might make sense for backgrounds, classes, feats, etc.  That being the case, clear mechanical roles cannot be determined primarily on the basis of story, although the story can inform the nuances.  If I were to write the post a second time I might state the mechanical bits first and say "Class typically represents the fundamental interaction with the setting's reality" and so on.  Then it would more clearly function as a bit of guidance rather than proscription and the player/designer could be first inspired by a nifty mechanic or the story and go from there.This is why I don't think the issue of fighter subclasses, for instance, has to be a decision between generic fighting styles vs. more cultural categories like samurai (although if push came to shove I'd probably choose the former.)  There is room for both, but each should embrace its own approach fully.  A generic style could be potentially compatible with many story identifications (including samurai) while a samurai subclass should embrace the unique characteristics of being a samurai (e.g. a bushido mechanic built on top of expertise dice) as part of its backbone.  Making sure that the mechanics (and to a lesser extent the "typical story") of different game elements have a clear place supports multiple approaches in this manner.  I want multiple approaches, but not if the cost is an amorphous mechanical blob.Ahh, but if a single level of a class may also be a smallish bundle of mechanical element what distinguishes feats from self-contained single-level class features?  Aside from the fundamental class mechanics like spells, the answer is probably not much unless one makes all feats significantly more or less powerful than what is gained from a class level.  In fact, if 3e-style multiclassing is present (and assuming a gladiator class) we now have at least two ways to gain modest gladiatorial abilities, and the distinction between "class feature" and "feat" is particularly murky.  If feats were gladiatorial breadth (independent mechanics) and class were gladiatorial depth (dependent mechanics) we could start to see a unique place again.  (Note that I am not saying there can only be one way to give classes, feats, etc. this kind of structure, just that "size alone" is insufficient without other structural considerations.)I'm not sure I consider that a counterexample to my perspective.  A character need not have the (non-existent?) sage class to be considered a sage within the fictional reality, whether its class is wizard or invoker.   The mechanical and role-playing decisions made at other points can certainly support that identification.  Heck, in 3.5 I helped make a sage ranger for another player that was quite fun at the table.  However, if the character identifies primarily as a sage, if there were a class whose combat abilities clearly had a sage-like feel, would the character not give that some consideration, perhaps just for multiclassing?  In fact, I think 4e's feat-based approach to multiclassing (despite my misgivings about using feats in the first place) marvelously succeeded in giving those feats a clear relationship to class features.  A person who homebrewed their own class could make a reasonable multiclass feat with very little effort because it was clear what was expected and permitted, and a player could discern this just as quickly.  If 5e could approach a similar mechanical clarity of purpose (if not quite mechanical rigidity) for its various elements, I think I would find a lot to like.As always, I have appreciated your in-depth thoughts.</blockquote>

Verification