Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5733316" data-attributes="member: 2067">Right, but that's shifting the goalposts. Combat role doesn't need to be one of those trade-offs. It hasn't always been one of those trade offs. It's a choice to make it one of those trade-offs, and that choice has features that are both positive and negative for various different players. The expectations aren't ridiculous. They come from what the game was able to do before the most recent edition change. Expecting what you like about the game to remain intact is hardly a ridiculous expectation. It's a psychological thing. It's really about managing expectations. Classes are contained within conceptual archetypes rather than mechanics because that's how we think of them. "Ranger" isn't about the particular mechanics the class has (like favored enemy or two-weapon fighting), it's about the particular feel those mechanics generate (an agile wilderness warrior!). You can dissociate those, but people generally don't think of classes as faceless bags of mechanics. Your warlock in WoW has the trappings of a dark wizard of eeeeevil because that's the conceptual archetype it is meant to embody. The mechanics of the class -- pet summoning and the like -- reflect that conceptual archetype. They are a secondary addition. The conceptual archetype is the important part.This is because when we first approach an RPG, we don't approach it saying, "I want to maximize my attack rolls with my bow, so I'm going to be a ranger!", we say, "I want to be like Robin Hood, so I'm going to pick the ranger!"  If my character isn't like Robin Hood, I don't want to be a ranger. I'm not going to pick the Ranger class if I'm interested in being a cultured, urbane mercenary for hire, even if my cultured, urbane mercenary for hire still wants to maximize his attack rolls with his bow.Dissociation also has other risks (seekers, battleminds, runepriests, etc.), but this thread largely isn't about that. <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=";)" /> This instinct to follow archetype -- in a game based around fantasy archetypes like knights, dragons, dwarves, and elves, is part of why the dissociation of mechanics and flavor is not an approach I generally encourage. Sure, it makes re-fluffing a cakewalk. But it also means that, fundamentally, mechanics are meaningless. If the exact same player ability can be the healing words of a deity and some jerk shouting at you, it's not great design, IMO, because quite evidently there should be a difference in those effects, since they are quite distinct in flavor. The inability of the mechanics to demonstrate this difference mechanically makes them lousy at creating the immersive fantasy game I want from my D&D. Sounds mostly like semantics to me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I don't think everyone expects classes to have an automatic combat role. Because of that, I think that flexibility in a combat role for every class is something to pursue. I also think it's something to pursue because of the "someone's gotta play the X" problem when you're missing a role. If everyone can be the X, whenever they need to be, regardless of their character concept, then it's the best-case solution to that problem, I think.</blockquote>

Verification