Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6662640" data-attributes="member: 6683613">I've had a similar thought before.&nbsp; When you decide to play a mage, you choose which gameplay elements you want to specialize in through your spell selection:&nbsp; whether you want to play a combat-focused blaster or an illusionist or a utility caster or whatever, those all fall under the category of &quot;wizard&quot; or &quot;sorcerer&quot;.&nbsp; But when you decide to play a martial character, you make that choice at the earlier point of class selection.&nbsp; Picking the fighter class is not, in this sense, equivalent to picking the wizard class; it's equivalent to picking the wizard class and then picking a heavy load of nuke spells, because you're telling the game system that you want to focus on your combat strength.Now, this is less true in 5th Edition than in previous editions because the background system gives fighters a much more open selection of skills.&nbsp; I have a player who always played barbarians in 3E and is now playing a fighter in 5E.&nbsp; What made 3E barbarians special to him was not their speed or their rage, but their extra class skills and skill points - in particular, he really liked having Wilderness Lore/Survival.&nbsp; Since 5E fighters have been brought up to the same level as barbarians on the skill front, he's branched out, and is really enjoying his character.But that's an aside.&nbsp; Even in 5E, the fighter class still has a distinct focus on, well, fighting, while the wizard determines its focus through spells.&nbsp; My question is this:&nbsp; is there anything wrong with one model or the other?&nbsp; On the martial side, you pick your specialization through class; on the magic side, you pick it within your class.&nbsp; Sure, there might be balance issues in the details of the class features, but that's not what I'm talking about.&nbsp; Generally speaking, is there any reason to prefer broader or narrower classes?Heck, &quot;broader&quot; and &quot;narrower&quot; might not even be the best way to conceptualize the distinction here.&nbsp; The fighter is focused on combat dominance, but has very broad options for how it fights.&nbsp; Call it broad means to a narrow end.&nbsp; The wizard can choose a lot of different focuses, but its particular spellcasting mechanic remains the same.&nbsp; Call it narrow means to a broad end.&nbsp; The fighter is defined by its end; the wizard by its means.&nbsp; So the question becomes, is there any reason to prefer end-defined classes or means-defined classes?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 6662640, member: 6683613"] I've had a similar thought before. When you decide to play a mage, you choose which gameplay elements you want to specialize in through your spell selection: whether you want to play a combat-focused blaster or an illusionist or a utility caster or whatever, those all fall under the category of "wizard" or "sorcerer". But when you decide to play a martial character, you make that choice at the earlier point of [I]class[/I] selection. Picking the fighter class is not, in this sense, equivalent to picking the wizard class; it's equivalent to picking the wizard class and then picking a heavy load of nuke spells, because you're telling the game system that you want to focus on your combat strength. Now, this is less true in 5th Edition than in previous editions because the background system gives fighters a much more open selection of skills. I have a player who always played barbarians in 3E and is now playing a fighter in 5E. What made 3E barbarians special to him was not their speed or their rage, but their extra class skills and skill points - in particular, he really liked having Wilderness Lore/Survival. Since 5E fighters have been brought up to the same level as barbarians on the skill front, he's branched out, and is really enjoying his character. But that's an aside. Even in 5E, the fighter class still has a distinct focus on, well, fighting, while the wizard determines its focus through spells. My question is this: is there anything [I]wrong[/I] with one model or the other? On the martial side, you pick your specialization through class; on the magic side, you pick it within your class. Sure, there might be balance issues in the details of the class features, but that's not what I'm talking about. Generally speaking, is there any reason to prefer broader or narrower classes? Heck, "broader" and "narrower" might not even be the best way to conceptualize the distinction here. The fighter is focused on combat dominance, but has very broad options for how it fights. Call it broad means to a narrow end. The wizard can choose a lot of different focuses, but its particular spellcasting mechanic remains the same. Call it narrow means to a broad end. The fighter is defined by its end; the wizard by its means. So the question becomes, is there any reason to prefer end-defined classes or means-defined classes? [/QUOTE]

Verification