NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Muh" data-source="post: 9171087" data-attributes="member: 7042567">You're kinda missing my point.I'm not saying you can't fit any particular character idea to any particular class. I've done it myself. I play a barbarian right now that in flavour isn't actually a barbarian (fighter + barb) but in flavour more like an eladrin-trained warrior / gladiator.I'm saying that certain things are going to jump out at people when they design a character from looking at the class list and it takes some experience with the system to see beyond this. I argue from an assumption that for all I know might be wrong, but it sounds very likely to me: People who start roleplaying and who are not extremely invested it in to the level that we forum-posters are, probably don't do reflavouring.Your Paladin example is actually great because it's a fine class to reflavour, but the problem is that if you don't actually do reflavouring and if you think of the class itself in terms of the class stereotype, which I am willing to believe most people who are not veterans do, then the paladain is a highly religious holy warrior and Tanjirou is most definitely not a highly religious holy warrior.I argue that the fighter works because it contains no element in its design that is immediately repulsive to people who do not reflavour classes. Paladin = highly religious fundamentalist, Ranger = weird nature warrior or archer, Monk = 70s kung-fu movie character.The rogue argument, I think, shows why it doesn't work. Rogue is heavily flavoured as shady and criminal. Yes you can play a non-shady rogue, but is that the immediate character concept that you think of when you make a rogue? The class names and basic concepts evoke certain flavours which you can certainly play around.</blockquote>

Verification