Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5733074" data-attributes="member: 177">I think I see the disconnect here....The thing is, the paladin class is not *the* holy warrior archetype, in full and total.&nbsp; It is one class that fits within the archetype.&nbsp; I would say that &quot;holy warrior&quot; is an exceedingly broad archetype, and I wouldn't generally want the designers to try to represent very broad archetypes in a single class.&nbsp; Look, for example, at arcane spellcasters - if you speak as the word is used in literature, &quot;wizard&quot; is broad.&nbsp; In the game, there are multiple classes for the archetype, including both the wizard and sorcerer.&nbsp; Correct me if I am wrong, but it seem to be you want all things that meet a broad archetype to be one class.&nbsp; Others don't feel the need for that.&nbsp; The real argument is about how broad &quot;class&quot; should be.It would be more clear, but it cannot be done unless the designers make up new nouns.&nbsp; White Wolf did this - they have hordes of names for &quot;classes&quot; throughout their games: Tremere, Children of Gaia, Virtual Adepts.&nbsp; These words mean very little, outside the game, carrying only a smidgen of connotation to a person in the real world. This has a result - if you approach the game, you need to learn a whole new vocabulary before you can tell what folks are talking about at all.&nbsp; If you listen to someone talking about the game, it comes out as gibberish - I see this now as my friends talk about nWoD games.&nbsp; They have different names than the oWoD that I'm used to, so I cannot follow discussions easily at all.Meanwhile, if you call a class a &quot;fighter&quot;, yes your ideas of what a fighter does may differ some from the exact implementation in the game, but you have a general idea that it's a guy who fights.&nbsp; In a fantasy game, the images of people in armor with swords leap to mind.There's a tradeoff there.&nbsp; Clear communication for folks already in the know is traded for a level of accessibility for those who aren't.&nbsp; (&quot;Spellsword&quot; - okay, that's someone who uses spells, *and* a sword!&nbsp; I got that fast.&nbsp; &quot;Euthanatos&quot;?&nbsp; Huh?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5733074, member: 177"] I think I see the disconnect here.... The thing is, the paladin class is not *the* holy warrior archetype, in full and total. It is one class that fits within the archetype. I would say that "holy warrior" is an exceedingly broad archetype, and I wouldn't generally want the designers to try to represent very broad archetypes in a single class. Look, for example, at arcane spellcasters - if you speak as the word is used in literature, "wizard" is broad. In the game, there are multiple classes for the archetype, including both the wizard and sorcerer. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seem to be you want all things that meet a broad archetype to be one class. Others don't feel the need for that. The real argument is about how broad "class" should be. It would be more clear, but it cannot be done unless the designers make up new nouns. White Wolf did this - they have hordes of names for "classes" throughout their games: Tremere, Children of Gaia, Virtual Adepts. These words mean very little, outside the game, carrying only a smidgen of connotation to a person in the real world. This has a result - if you approach the game, you need to learn a whole new vocabulary before you can tell what folks are talking about at all. If you listen to someone talking about the game, it comes out as gibberish - I see this now as my friends talk about nWoD games. They have different names than the oWoD that I'm used to, so I cannot follow discussions easily at all. Meanwhile, if you call a class a "fighter", yes your ideas of what a fighter does may differ some from the exact implementation in the game, but you have a general idea that it's a guy who fights. In a fantasy game, the images of people in armor with swords leap to mind. There's a tradeoff there. Clear communication for folks already in the know is traded for a level of accessibility for those who aren't. ("Spellsword" - okay, that's someone who uses spells, *and* a sword! I got that fast. "Euthanatos"? Huh?) [/QUOTE]

Verification