The point isn't that class can't have different mechanics. Absolutely they can. But my point is that it shouldn't be WOTC'S absolute decision which classes use which mechanics. Because whatever they end up choosing will only be embraced by a small percentage of the D&D populace, and the others will bitch about it, and probably outright refuse to play.
That's why they're talking about doing modules in the first place. So that they can put out several types of mechanics to use, and then let individual DMs CHOOSE which mechanics they like and don't like, and can use them for their classes as THEY SEE FIT.
Do you honestly believe the game will be embraced by the general D&D populace if WotC makes the decision that Wizards are Vancian and that's it? All because of the supposed idea that without "concrete" mechanics for a class, that the class has no identity? And what if by that same argument WotC makes the decision that ALL martial classes use Expertise Dice? Do you think that'll go over?
As I've mentioned to everyone who's brought it up before... those people who say you can't have several different mechanics to choose from for any particular class (left up to the DM to select when he's putting his campaign together)... would only want "one mechanic to rule them all" just so long as they actually like the mechanic their class got assigned. Cause if WotC ended up giving them a mechanic they didn't like with no easy way to not use it and use something else instead... they'll just end up playing whatever other version of the game that gave them what they wanted in the first place.
They could also just make those mechanics aspects of different classes, and the DM just chooses which class he likes, or allow them all. That is, essentially, what's being done with each class now. The modules would change the mechanics of the class so much that it's essentially another class, but if you want only one of those kinds of things in your game, just choose that class to fill the "Magic-Man!" role. Now, I'm not against the idea of modules, and I understand how they could easily improve the game. They also allow a widely different game between groups. not necessarily bad, but what about people who move fairly often, who have a good game with their friends, then they move, and they can't find a DM who allows the mechanics they like? It's like dealing with edition wars all over again, just all wrapped up in the same game.
What if Paladin class fluff doesn't have Paladin's worshipping deities? What if they are knightly champions of a cause? What if they have a specific Order, a la the Templars or Knight Hospitalers? What if being a Paladin was by definition different than being a Fighter/Cleric by how the class's Story was designed? THAT'S how you differentiate a Paladin from a Fighter/Cleric. How you differentiate a Sorcerer from a Wizard. How you differentiate a Bard from a Rogue/Wizard? Or Ranger from Fighter with a Nature background?
Yes, sure, that could work. All you have to do is change the fluff. However, you could do exactly the same thing with the Fighter/Cleric. I mean, they're called "hybrid" classes for a reason. They mix up the roles of other, primary classes into one class. If they have a specific order, and one of your players wanted to make a Fighter/Cleric instead of Paladin and change the same aspects of his Clergihood as you changed the Paladin, why say no? I'm not trying to diminish the Paladin, or any hybrid class, of it's potentially unique flavor or mechanical role, but the hybrid classes
are, well, hybrids. Anything you can change about the hybrid class you can also change about the base classes or their combination such that they're, story-wise, still the same concept.
Why is it necessary to differentiate between any of those class combinations you named except because the mechanics or current fluff say so? Is it necessary, or does the differentiation exist only because people prefer their options? The specific title of a class isn't half as important as what the class actually
does. What do I want to do such that I'd choose Paladin over Fighter/Cleric? There's not currently any fluff which would separate them in conception. That's done by the individuals who design the campaign with the "Association of We're Paladins and Not Fighter/Clerics" (the specific fluff is irrelevant, the point is the campaign differentiates between them).
If ALL you used for differentiation was mechanics... you might as well just make two classes. One that uses weapons, the other that uses spells. After all... a Cleric is just a spellcaster with a very specific list of spells to use. The whole "get our spells from the god we worship" is entirely Class Story and has no actual mechanics to back it up.
Sure, but that's diminishing the class concept even more. I'm not saying that fluff cannot be used to differentiate between classes. Indeed, I've been pointing out that it's fluff which makes Paladins and Fighter Clerics comparable in the first place. Their mechanics are certainly not identical, or else why would this even come up? What I'm saying is that generic fantasy and general D&D lore places Fighter/Clerics and Paladins in very similar, often overlapping fluff-niches. When two classes (or class combinations) can fill the same social, adventuring, political, or whatever role, why prohibit one of them from doing it simply because of the title of their class?
Using class names in the game or out of the game is not the point. Any DM can call these classes whatever they want within their own game. But the whole point is that just using game mechanics as a way to distinguish classes is no way to inspire more people to play or come back to D&D. Because if those mechanics don't WORK for someone... they just won't play the game. So if we all embrace the idea that a Fighter is a Fighter because of what being a fighter represents within the Story of the game... then we can have several modules of different mechanics (some simple, some complex, some just with damage, some with bizarre fencing maneuvers) that any particular DM and/or player can USE to represent what his Fighter can do.
That's an idea I'm not against, I'm simply saying I don't consider it necessarily a good one. It is, after all, essentially having the same thing as a bunch of different classes, all with the name "Fighter". Further,
plenty of people like or dislike a system based on, well, the system itself. 4th edition and all of it's dissenters have proven that to be the case. There was no significant flavoring differences between 3rd and 4th edition Fighters. Fluff-wise, the fighter is the same. The
mechanics are what drove many people away. RPGs, especially D&D, are not defined by their fluff, because any DM can change any of the fluff to suit his particular campaign. Fluff is essentially optional. It's good to have default fluff, since most people don't want to invent entire new worlds all on their own, but my point is it's not necessary. Fluff can be granted or taken away on the fly. The mechanics, on the other hand, define what can be done.
I submit the belief that WotC is much more likely to get a predominant agreement from the D&D populace on what the Story of what a specific class is... then they are on what kinds of mechanics should be used to represent it. And thus... let's use THAT as the way to distinguish one class from another, and not get so fixated on choosing one mechanic (and only one mechanic) to use for it. Because that is going to cause much more angina than asking DMs to select from several modules of different mechanics to use.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this point. I'm only trying to figure out exactly what the difference is between modules, and different classes all with the same name. I'm certainly for customization of classes, but where is the line where it's still a specific class, and why are modules better than a bunch of different classes with different mechanics but which fill the same role story-wise?
