Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6053327" data-attributes="member: 22779">The thing is, just how unique do classes actually have to be to be unique?Go back to Basic/Expert for a second.  There is virtually no difference, mechanically, between a Fighter and a Dwarf.  The dwarf gets some additional dwarfy abilities, but, in combat, they are identical.  Yet, I never heard complaints about how they were too close.  And, in play, the two were always played very differently.Even in AD&D, the difference between the fighter and ranger were pretty small.  1e I'm referring to here.  Rangers got tracking and an attack bonus vs a specific list of creatures.  Oh, and he couldn't carry as much money.  That was the sum total of the differences.  Same weapons, same armor, etc.  Yet, again, I'm pretty sure that 1e players will tell you that there is a world of difference between a ranger and a fighter.Class unique abilities are not required to make classes unique.  People make their characters unique through play.  Otherwise two characters of the same class would be identical.  By breaking out specific class elements and letting players mix and match, to a certain degree, you gain maximum flexibility without losing the core of the classes.I mean, going back to the warlock vs wizard discussion.  If the only difference between my warlock and your wizard is that I use a spell point system and you use Vancian, but we all use the same spell list, have the same attack progression, same weapons, same armor, I'd argue that that is not enough to actually differentiate those two classes.But, if my warlock uses a mana system, is an explorer and tough, and your wizard uses the Vancian system, is an academic and is a diplomat, that will distinguish those two characters.  Why do classes need to be distinct?  Isn't the goal to make characters who are unique?</blockquote>

Verification