Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6677396" data-attributes="member: 40177">To put it briefly - fighters can exist in the real world.&nbsp; And when that happens, you can either go crazy trying to have a huge subset of rules to cater to every variation of reality (see Pathfinder), or you can just settle for a super broad write-up, and leave the fine-tuning for others.&nbsp; We don't get this problem with the other classes because we accept that they don't exist in the real world, and so that they can follow the rules of the game.&nbsp; And the rules will have flavour attached to it, so we can accept that there are certain tones to diviners, for example.&nbsp; But if the game says &quot;hey, all champions have x flavour&quot;, we can instantly think of alternatives.&nbsp; Flavourful fighter variations are available - but I think wotc went the right direction with making the core 3 very broad mechanical choices.&nbsp; Regarding the wizardly specializations:&nbsp; I like 'em.&nbsp; I think they were a great choice, and they're mostly pretty spot-on to reflect how the game should play.&nbsp; However, I kind of dislike the necromancer... I've always wanted to play a 2e-style good necromancer who uses the spells to oppose evil necromancers, and it's still not possible in fifth.&nbsp; But that's a whole other story.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 6677396, member: 40177"] To put it briefly - fighters can exist in the real world. And when that happens, you can either go crazy trying to have a huge subset of rules to cater to every variation of reality (see Pathfinder), or you can just settle for a super broad write-up, and leave the fine-tuning for others. We don't get this problem with the other classes because we accept that they don't exist in the real world, and so that they can follow the rules of the game. And the rules will have flavour attached to it, so we can accept that there are certain tones to diviners, for example. But if the game says "hey, all champions have x flavour", we can instantly think of alternatives. Flavourful fighter variations are available - but I think wotc went the right direction with making the core 3 very broad mechanical choices. Regarding the wizardly specializations: I like 'em. I think they were a great choice, and they're mostly pretty spot-on to reflect how the game should play. However, I kind of dislike the necromancer... I've always wanted to play a 2e-style good necromancer who uses the spells to oppose evil necromancers, and it's still not possible in fifth. But that's a whole other story. [/QUOTE]

Verification