Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CroBob" data-source="post: 6052468" data-attributes="member: 6683307"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>are</em>, 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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>does</em>. 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).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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, <em>plenty</em> 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 <em>mechanics</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CroBob, post: 6052468, member: 6683307"] 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. 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 [i]are[/i], 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 [i]does[/i]. 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). 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? 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, [i]plenty[/i] 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 [i]mechanics[/i] 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'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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)
Top