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: 5940766" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think it's relevant to conversations like this, because it shows the benefits of doing essentially the same thing in a few different ways. And that it isn't bad design or bad logic to do so. As long as that's true, it opens up the space of having "wilderness warrior" to many different sections of the game, and lets them all exist happily alongside each other. Well, your question can be answered with the obvious: because different people will be attracted to that archetype in different ways. Some will want to play an elf vampire, some will want to play a vampire wizard, some will want to play an elf wizard who is also a vampire, and then folks like me will want to play a TRIPLE VAMPIRE ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE SKY. And that might be silly (I certainly trumped up the absurdity of it when I played Kiki), but silly can be fun, too. And it certainly doesn't HAVE to be silly. Meh. My philosophy is that fun trumps all, so if someone really is excited about their ridiculous character concept, I'd rather embrace it than imagine my game about adults pretending to be elves is somehow SERIOUS BUSINESS. But like I said, it doesn't HAVE to be silly. A ranger with a trapper background and the tempest theme is just going to be VERY ranger-y. A fighter with the trapper background and the tempest theme is just going to be quite a bit ranger-y. A druid with the commoner background and the archer theme might render the distinction academic. There doesn't have to be just one way to make a ranger. I basically agree, but I don't think this means that classes need to be redefined.Again, look at the rogue. There's nothing there that can't be handled with a theme or a background. There's no NEED for the rogue class. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a rogue class. Classes can just be a particular package of abilities that you could also find in other areas of the game. Flavorful and dynamic, yes. Unique...eh...yes and no. Any character might wield divine magic for a god. Any character might mount a horse. Any character might train in heavy armor and martial weapons and shields. Any character might heal with a laying on of hands or get bonuses to their saves. Any character might challenge foes and detect evil.  A paladin might just be a particular combination of these abilities in one chunk. They might get some particularly unique way or style of it. It's not necessarily especially D&D, but I'm fond of subsystems, so I like to see lots of 'em. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Forex, I could see a paladin subsystem that encourages players to "play chivalrously": They get bonuses for rushing headlong into the jaws of evil, and can stay longer than most others there, helping to protect others (forex, you get extra damage on a charge, extra to-hit bonuses against creatures identified as EEEEVIL, and extra defenses against creatures who are trying to mob or flank you). That's a new mechanic idea supporting the same concept. Especially in a game that values modularity, a class need not be especially unique. They should have a strong identity, but you don't need to be unique for that.</blockquote>

Verification