Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 5944755" data-attributes="member: 6690511">To explain it another way: The way the game is currently designed, the Fighter class represents a general concept, and then through a combination of background, theme, and class feature choices, you can choose what specific kind of fighter you want to be. The Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian aesthetically feel like &quot;specific kinds of fighter,&quot; so the aesthetics of the design would have them as backgrounds, themes, and/or class feature choices. The problem is, for a variety of reasons (summarized below), some of them can't fit into those slots (though some of them can, and should). Therefore, if they are separate classes, I feel it would be best to describe those classes explicitly as being &quot;specific kinds of fighter.&quot;The other solution is to redefine fighter to have a more specific meaning (much like 3e defined Wizard as &quot;spellcaster who studies arcane magic&quot; and Sorcerer as &quot;spellcaster who is naturally talented with arcane magic), but that still doesn't solve Assassin and Druid, which exist wholly within the definition of other classes.* Reasons why they can't be backgrounds/themes/in-class choices: Tradition, too much mechanical baggage, doesn't fit due to the design of those customization slots (e.g. a Barbarian background can't preclude armor proficiencies, because backgrounds have to be non-combat)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GX.Sigma, post: 5944755, member: 6690511"] To explain it another way: The way the game is currently designed, the Fighter class represents a general concept, and then through a combination of background, theme, and class feature choices, you can choose what specific kind of fighter you want to be. The Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian aesthetically feel like "specific kinds of fighter," so the aesthetics of the design would have them as backgrounds, themes, and/or class feature choices. The problem is, for a variety of reasons (summarized below), some of them can't fit into those slots (though some of them can, and should). Therefore, if they are separate classes, I feel it would be best to describe those classes explicitly as being "specific kinds of fighter." The other solution is to redefine fighter to have a more specific meaning (much like 3e defined Wizard as "spellcaster who studies arcane magic" and Sorcerer as "spellcaster who is naturally talented with arcane magic), but that still doesn't solve Assassin and Druid, which exist wholly within the definition of other classes. * Reasons why they can't be backgrounds/themes/in-class choices: Tradition, too much mechanical baggage, doesn't fit due to the design of those customization slots (e.g. a Barbarian background can't preclude armor proficiencies, because backgrounds have to be non-combat) [/QUOTE]

Verification