NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6607998" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It certainly could, though again I would like to note that I'm not (specifically) wed to the particular implementation there--just the idea that the Warlock has sharply different progressions for spell levels 1-5, vs. levels 6-9, and that this COULD be leveraged by making ONLY the 1-5 part a core class feature, while the 6-9 part is a (very important!) subclass feature. Of course, that might be a little too much power concentrated in the late stages of a subclass, but I'd like to think it could work out. I'm afraid I was unclear. I was not trying to say that the setting element definition of "magitek" is something people disagree on--that's pretty much uniform, much like "hermetic magic" is pretty much uniform. I had thought, given that I immediately described mechanics, it would be clear that I was speaking of the mechanical definition of "magitek." That is: we already know what "magic" is, in several different forms, as a mechanical expression--and mechanical expression does factor into how people feel about a class (frex, why the playtest Fighter went through 4-5 different mechanical writeups, instead of iteratively improving on the original design, and why the original Sorcerer got totally scrapped).Perhaps it's my experience with GW2 speaking, but I honestly don't see the problem with a "grenadier"-type still having Divine Strike. That is, the Engineer "profession" (GW2's term for "class") is very, very much a magitek user, and many of its abilities are about hitting something with a weapon--specifically a pistol or rifle, as those are the only weapons they can use. (They make up for their lack of 'normal' weapons by having Weapon Kits, skills that replace their equipment with a different set of abilities, though still dependent on their equipment stats--a Flamethrower for damage, an Elixir Gun for healing, and a Tool Belt for utility and defense). So I have no problem with them having a "Divine Strike"-equivalent. In fact, making it a base skill and then doing some kind of replacement seems a simpler solution to me--e.g. all Artificers might get [Melee Strike Booster], but Gunners apply it to ranged attacks rather than melee, and Grenadiers apply it to "Toolkit Abilities" (Cantrips?) instead. But then again, I'm of the opinion that it's better and easier to make general rules and then highlight the rare exception, rather than setting defaults and then mentioning how 75%+ of the categories deviate from the default in (essentially) exactly the same way.I think we were talking past each other. I agree that the 5e "Hunter's Mark" spell has similarities to the 4e "Hunter's Mark" ability, but I strongly disagree that having that spell means the 5e Hunter "takes into account 4e class design." The mere fact that it's a spell, requiring a slot, and that it's a concentration spell (and therefore trivially easy to lose--especially beyond level 6 or so) is why I don't really see it as "taking into account 4e class design." But, as I've said elsewhere, I don't much care for several of the mechanical ways 5e implements things, so this shouldn't really be a surprise.Well, I took "Classes are far more than just a collection of mechanics" to mean that mechanics were only the smallest (or at least only one small) contribution; I suppose that was more than the strictest reading of your words would allow. Still, there's definitely an implication that the other parts are of primary importance: "Functionally, another class may be able to fill the mechanical role that a Ranger does, but Narratively, for many, they never will." (Emphasis in original) Strong implication that the narrative element is the primary concern. Not an explicit statement, to be sure, but I don't think my reading was unwarranted either.I do not, at all, mean to deny that the game is more than just its mechanics, though I am not exactly enthused with your unnecessary italics-and-bolding. My point was simply this:Why would anyone write narrative descriptions of things that have zero existence within the mechanics of the game?If you can find an answer to that question, then you will have proven me wrong, and I'll accept that. However, I don't think there IS a reason for it. Unless, an until, there is SOMETHING mechanical to receive description, such description is not "part of the game." Once a mechanical component does exist within the game, it then absolutely requires a description of some kind--I completely agree with that. But all the description in the world would be meaningless if the thing described doesn't exist. That's why you don't see descriptions of Rangers, Druids, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Bards, etc. in 0e; they just flat-out don't exist, mechanically, and so there's no reason to describe them in special terms. Those things began to exist later, because external-to-the-game descriptions begged inclusion; thus, mechanics were drafted so that those descriptions could meaningfully apply to the game. D&D has no mechanical meaning for "accountant," so there is nothing for a description of "accountant" to hang from, and thus there is no present-within-the-rules narrative description of what "an accountant" is or means. (I should say, nothing pre-5e; it's possible that 5e implements a very very loose hook-point for such a description through its Backgrounds.) Another way to say this, in philosophical terms, is that for games, existence precedes essence, and existence emphatically is mechanics. Essence is narrative. Things do not exist within "The Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game," as an entity of rules prior to being played, unless they have some kind of representation within its mechanics. Things without mechanics do not exist prior to play; non-mechanical things totally can (and often do) exist once play begins, because the DM and/or group thinks they should, but prior to play, nothing exists "in The Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game" unless it has mechanical meaning. However, JUST having mechanical meaning is not enough for the vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of things: they must also have essence, narrative meaning, because a Roleplaying Game has a narrative as a necessary component (even if the "narrative" is just the Orc-and-Pie scenario!) But those narratives only become part of The Roleplaying Game because something within the game needs that description. It could be--and I'd say it often is!--that the mechanical implementation only exists because someone had a narrative they really wanted to tell, but the narrative only becomes part of The Game once it has a mechanical hook to hang from. Before there are mechanics for "Bard," there is no Bard, even though people very much want to tell stories about minstrel heroes. The narrative about Bard only becomes part of the game once Bard is mechanically implemented; until then, it's just a fluffy bit externally applied to the game by the players, as an artefact of play.Well, I did say previously that I missed most of the middle of the thread (in the very post you quoted, actually, though I said it to someone other than you). I apologize for missing your previous words--though I still feel that you did not really say much about mechanics being important, while saying a great deal about how narrative is extremely important.Beyond that, though, I think you are either taking one thing as though it were really two different things, or treating another thing as though it were one when it really should be two. By which I mean: either I don't buy your distinction between "Narrative" and "Purpose," or I don't buy your characterization of "Mechanics." Purpose, as I see it, is a proper subset of Narrative: part of the "story told" by a particular class. If, however, you're going to fork "Purpose" into its own category, even though I would call it "purpose within the narrative," then I think you need to explain why you aren't (or at least do not seem to be) also forking "purpose within the mechanics," aka Role, into its own category.Of course, the more natural way to view this (IMO) is to say that every class has a Narrative, and that a Narrative should include a teleology (Purpose), and furthermore that every class should have Mechanics, and those Mechanics should include a teleology as well (Role). Just as Purpose may serve multiple masters, e.g. the Ranger-as-hunter vs. Ranger-as-scout, Role may also serve multiple masters, e.g. the Paladin-as-healer vs. the Paladin-as-smiter.Except the Fighter, or more specifically the Champion. The baseline Fighter class gives no features that exist in the exploration or interaction pillars. (It may give skills for those pillars--or may not, depending on player choice--but skills are not features.) The Champion furthermore gets no interaction features, and at least IMO only barely qualifies as getting exploration features (it can jump Str mod feet further than most people! Oooh aaah, so featurey!) The Battlemaster, honestly, isn't much better; Know Your Enemy is all about combat statistics (stats, AC, HP, level), so it has Artisan's Tools and...even that isn't purely non-combat (e.g. Leatherworker's Tools wouldn't do much good other than (a) earning money to live, which isn't any of the pillars, or (b) making armor, which is mostly combat-facing). And then the EK's default spell list limits make it mostly focused toward protecting or blasting.Mearls really wasn't kidding when he said "if the Fighter is 100% combat, then the Rogue might be..." etc. (possible paraphrase there).</blockquote>

Verification