Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5957815" data-attributes="member: 54877">Kavon, I think we might have got our wires crossed on that last exchange. &nbsp;I like the idea as an idea. I don't like its chances in the furor that it would create. Or alternately, if it did somehow stagger through the furor, it would be so mangled as to not be so great in the final product. You don't have to convince me that it's D&amp;D. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp;The difference in having two classes is that some people want whatever traditional, vaguely plausible, stuff that sounds good for their wizard, and other people want a good design, even if that steps on tradition. I say, let the first group have the &quot;wizard&quot; and give us in the second group a clean design, under some other class name, uncontaminated by all the short-cuts, contradictory demands, balance issues, etc. Those of us in the latter group are immediately going to ban the &quot;wizard&quot; anyway, in favor of the cleaner class. So if you play a &quot;mage&quot; at my table, you can call it a &quot;wizard&quot; if you want, as long as you use the clean mechanics. &nbsp;I think they should do this for all the classes. I nominate wizard, fighter, cleric, thief, ranger, paladin, druid, bard, etc. for the first group. We'll take &quot;rogue&quot; as a consolation prize, and then have warrior, mage, priest, champion, skald, loremaster, etc (or whatever set makes sense in the design).&nbsp;Bringing this back around the long way more on topic, I think this is one hidden reason for why they want different mechanics to reside in different classes. They get to neatly side-step a lot of flak. (The other hidden reason is that they get to write a lot more classes and then put them in books to sell.) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5957815, member: 54877"] Kavon, I think we might have got our wires crossed on that last exchange. I like the idea as an idea. I don't like its chances in the furor that it would create. Or alternately, if it did somehow stagger through the furor, it would be so mangled as to not be so great in the final product. You don't have to convince me that it's D&D. :p The difference in having two classes is that some people want whatever traditional, vaguely plausible, stuff that sounds good for their wizard, and other people want a good design, even if that steps on tradition. I say, let the first group have the "wizard" and give us in the second group a clean design, under some other class name, uncontaminated by all the short-cuts, contradictory demands, balance issues, etc. Those of us in the latter group are immediately going to ban the "wizard" anyway, in favor of the cleaner class. So if you play a "mage" at my table, you can call it a "wizard" if you want, as long as you use the clean mechanics. I think they should do this for all the classes. I nominate wizard, fighter, cleric, thief, ranger, paladin, druid, bard, etc. for the first group. We'll take "rogue" as a consolation prize, and then have warrior, mage, priest, champion, skald, loremaster, etc (or whatever set makes sense in the design). Bringing this back around the long way more on topic, I think this is one hidden reason for why they want different mechanics to reside in different classes. They get to neatly side-step a lot of flak. (The other hidden reason is that they get to write a lot more classes and then put them in books to sell.) :p [/QUOTE]

Verification