Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 8296183" data-attributes="member: 6803643">You make a fair point here, and it's related to how 5e classes function - they need to be as big-hat as possible, to offer all sorts of cultural heroic and mythological archetypes. Past editions had a new class every time they wanted to come up with some specific archetype that didn't quite fit the themes of the core classes, even if they overlapped heavily. 5e says you can play as a Ninja, but think about whether you're a mystic ninja (Way of Shadow Monk) or Batman-esque grit and tech Ninja (Assassin archetype Rogue). Previous editions would have given you 5 different classes each that said Ninja in a different way. I'd personally rather they didn't use the term Bard or Druid either, as the hats are becoming too small for the various heads filling them. Monk is a great example of a generalized term for an overly specific (and problematic in my view) set of class features. Bard and Druid are the opposite - too specific terms for much more generalized concepts. Paladin is similar. I'd RATHER they not use culturally specific class names, especially as the classes expand to include so many concepts beyond the western European archetypes. But these are the sacred cows that D&D can't slaughter this edition, just as M:tG can't slaughter the Shaman at this point in time. D&D tried to slaughter their cows in 4e, and got a lot of backlash for it. They didn't slaughter these ones particularly (and even embraced the term Shaman as a class), but they slaughtered other sacred cows and ended up alienating a good chunk of their audience.But D&D doesn't have to incorporate another loaded term into its baggage in 5e. And I also believe that to an extent, terms like Bard and Druid and Paladin have become generalized terms in D&D history due to their presence in the game for 40+ years. Barbarian has took, to far more unfortunate results than those three. Shaman has not. It also carries with it the very specific cultural appropriation baggage of 18th-20th Century racist anthology. Wikipedia uses it because of the sheer documentation of use that way by the anthropological community, but then spends a large section to the criticism of the term by people who want Anthropology to be better. I think D&D can do better in general, and I expect they will for 6e and tread lightly with their present decisions in 5e.</blockquote>

Verification