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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6179639" data-attributes="member: 2067">I talk about this a bit in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1192-What-Is-Worthy-of-a-Class" target="_blank">my article from last week</a>, and about the tension overall in D&D between defining "class" as something purely mechanical, or as something more narrative. And the 2e movement from "it's a part of the Fighter class!" to "Okay, it's a variant fighter" to "Fine, it's its own class" mirrors the development of pretty much every other class, at one point or another.  It can be argued that in OD&D, if you wanted to play a barbarian, you ALSO played a Fighting-Man. At least until 1e introduced it as a class.The thing I note in the article is that ultimately, I believe that the mechanics should support the story, which means that a class defined by story (and conflict) is going to be more useful than a class defined by a mechanical trick or broad rules similarity. Which means that in my book, the Sorcerer and the Warlock and the Artificer should actually all be different classes, and have rules elements that support their different stories, rather than being lumped into Mage just because they all can use some version of charm person. The rogue and the bard and the paladin all can use SOME version of charm person (a skill check to make someone your friend isn't a dramatically different result than consuming a daily resource to make someone your friend or spending power points to make someone your friend), so the Mage "class" doesn't seem to be doing its job that well.</blockquote>

Verification