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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6177340" data-attributes="member: 92511">The game is, primarily, a fantasy genre game. The fantasy genre is built on the foundation that there are guys (most often the "hero") with swords and guys (most often the villain, but sometimes heroes...or hero's helpers, too) with magic.Swords and Spells. Weapons and Wizardry.That's the boiled down basic core of fantasy character types.D&D got that. You got the Fighting Man/Fighter/Warrior and the Magic-User/Mage/Wizard.Then came the Cleric...a fighting guy with spells, basically, who got flavored into divine/religious/spiritual powers...and a Thief/Rogue...a fighting guy who used [disreputable] "skills" and cunning more than brute strength and direct confrontation.From there the D&D Family tree of Classes didst branch off into a veritable jungle of twisted, forked, diverging and rejoined limbs and endless leaves of special snowflake classes. In that vein, it makes sense that the guys who are the broadest classes, in D&D terms, would be a Fighter and a Mage.If the sub-classes for Fighter were to include "Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger" (and I don't believe they will) as a Mage includes "Sorcerer and Warlock [at least, Psion is a tougher pill, but understandable from the "squishy guy whose contribution is to know/do weird/unknown things" perspective, I wouldn't really blink twice. Your barbarian still gets your ragey and naturey stuff. Paladins are still getting their channeling/auras, special mount stuff...so, whether it sits on a list beneath or beside "Fighter" really makes no nevermind. Of the distinctions that are being made, "different spell mechanics" are the defining crunch of the spell casters. What are we? Spell Casters. What do we do? Cast spells. How? That's what makes us different and the rest is all fluff-driven. I'm a wizard who studies magic from books and can throw any spell I get my hands on at you. I'm a psion who focuses my mental energies to reach into and/or scramble your brain. I'm a warlock who made a deal with a wicked faye prince to have/use/work magic in my quest for vengance. I'm a sorcerer who just started making magic happen when I was a kid...now I can create and shape fire however I  want and make stuff float off the ground!   This is just the same as they are differentiating the Fighter's "specialties" [or whatever in blazes they are called now]. What are you? Persons who fight. What do you do? Fight persons [of any race or species]. How? That's what makes us different and the rest is all fluff-driven.I'm a knight who skewers enemies on horseback. I'm a gladiator who does acrobatics, brawling and double/triple/sneak attacks. I'm a berserker who just barrels in, eyes wild. I'm an archer who rains pointy justice on my enemies form afar. It makes sense. It also makes sense if Barbarian and Ranger were in there too. Paladin, with the divine magic stuff, might mandate its own class in this style/perspective...or become a branch off of the branch of "Cleric" instead of "Fighter"...or its own branch where cleric and "noble/honorable" fighter branches converge. But, I digress. The point is, they could be included under the Fighter umbrella class but they're not and I suspect that is mostly due to tradition and legacy.I have no issue with that. Sorcerer has been its own class for 2 editions...by far the most possibly "legitimate" magicky characters worthy of its own class...'cept its only defining mechanical feature/difference from the wizardly spell-casters is "I use my magic like this"...a.k.a. from the fighter side "I use my weapons like this."Warlock has only been a PHB class for 1 edition. Psion has only been a PHB class for 1...and that is arguable, as it was in a 3rd PHB, not a 1st.I get people love the classes and characters they love. I get that. But you can play an assassin without there being its own class. And if it is "under" the Rogue/Thief class, is it somehow less than it would be on its own? Is its concept somehow different? No. You can play a warlock without it being its own class. You need the "right" warlock mechanics for their magic, which is all that differentiates them from the other casters, and the rest is the "right" warlocky fluff/story bits. So, yeah, lump some, don't lump others. Its all good and mostly makes sense. I think everyone needs to take their indignation down a few notches with this, imho.</blockquote>

Verification