Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6147952" data-attributes="member: 7006">And there were plenty of 3E people who didn't see the Ranger as just 'Fighter archer in all but name'.&nbsp; To them, there was as much of a differential between what a Fighter and Ranger were as you feel between a Cleric and a Warlord.As I mentioned... it basically involves people carving out of their own brains the idea that &quot;You can't refluff/reskin Magic!&quot;.&nbsp; Which is baloney.&nbsp; The entire game is nothing but mechanics.&nbsp; And that's true in every edition.&nbsp; Every bit of fluffing layered on top of these mechanics makes them interesting to play... but are by no means the ONLY fluffing that works.What is spellcasting in D&amp;DN from a purely mechanical point of view?&nbsp; It's that at 1st level you have 2 or more &quot;things&quot; you know, and twice per day you can do any of them.&nbsp; That's it.&nbsp; That's the extent of the mechanics of spellcasting at it's base form.Now the game layers on top of this all kinds of fluffy rules describing how a person learns or finds those two &quot;things&quot; he knows, what he needs to have or do in order to accomplish those two &quot;things&quot; he knows, when he can get another opportunity to do those two &quot;things&quot; he knows, and why he is doing those two &quot;things&quot; he knows.&nbsp; All fluffed as &quot;magic&quot;.But those two &quot;things&quot; he knows?&nbsp; They can be anything.&nbsp; However you choose to fluff them.&nbsp; And our &quot;warlord&quot; might know two things-- 1) he can grant a bonus of +1 to +4 to attacks and skill rolls to other players for 10 minutes, and 2) he can grant a recovery of 1d8+2 hit points.&nbsp; Does anything in those two &quot;things&quot; scream &quot;Magic!&quot; in any, way, shape or form?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Not in the least.&nbsp; Because we just had an edition where these exact kinds of &quot;things&quot; were granted by all manner of classes, magic or mundane. Why not?&nbsp; If this game is meant to be inclusive of all players... there's no reason for them NOT to mention both ways.&nbsp; Maybe not in the same book or in the opening chapters of basic character creation... but in a &quot;modular&quot; game, I see absolutely no reason why you wouldn't or couldn't have a section on refluffing/reskinning/sub-class design.&nbsp; If you're trying to cut down on the number of classes you create (because of the amount of &quot;stuff&quot; you then have to create to support that class-- which yes, they would HAVE to do otherwise they'd get people complaining about it incessantly a la the Seeker and Runepriest)... then going into ways to create your own classes via refluffing/reskinning/sub-class design makes all the sense in the world in my opinion.And getting a &quot;warlord&quot; by adding a few cleric multiclass levels to a fighter sub-class seems a pretty easy way to accomplish it, unless it's really just the fluff of the warlord a person cares about and has to see it written down somewhere.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6147952, member: 7006"] And there were plenty of 3E people who didn't see the Ranger as just 'Fighter archer in all but name'. To them, there was as much of a differential between what a Fighter and Ranger were as you feel between a Cleric and a Warlord. As I mentioned... it basically involves people carving out of their own brains the idea that "You can't refluff/reskin Magic!". Which is baloney. The entire game is nothing but mechanics. And that's true in [I]every[/I] edition. Every bit of fluffing layered on top of these mechanics makes them interesting to play... but are by no means the ONLY fluffing that works. What is spellcasting in D&DN from a purely mechanical point of view? It's that at 1st level you have 2 or more "things" you know, and twice per day you can do any of them. That's it. That's the [I]extent[/I] of the mechanics of spellcasting at it's base form. Now the game layers on top of this all kinds of fluffy rules describing [I]how[/I] a person learns or finds those two "things" he knows, [I]what[/I] he needs to have or do in order to accomplish those two "things" he knows, [I]when[/I] he can get another opportunity to do those two "things" he knows, and [I]why[/I] he is doing those two "things" he knows. All fluffed as "magic". But those two "things" he knows? They can be anything. However you choose to fluff them. And our "warlord" might know two things-- 1) he can grant a bonus of +1 to +4 to attacks and skill rolls to other players for 10 minutes, and 2) he can grant a recovery of 1d8+2 hit points. Does anything in those two "things" scream "Magic!" in any, way, shape or form? No. Not in the least. Because we just had an edition where these exact kinds of "things" were granted by all manner of classes, magic or mundane. Why not? If this game is meant to be inclusive of all players... there's no reason for them NOT to mention both ways. Maybe not in the same book or in the opening chapters of basic character creation... but in a "modular" game, I see absolutely no reason why you wouldn't or couldn't have a section on refluffing/reskinning/sub-class design. If you're trying to cut down on the number of classes you create (because of the amount of "stuff" you then have to create to[I] support[/I] that class-- which yes, they would HAVE to do otherwise they'd get people complaining about it incessantly a la the Seeker and Runepriest)... then going into ways to create your own classes via refluffing/reskinning/sub-class design makes all the sense in the world in my opinion. And getting a "warlord" by adding a few cleric multiclass levels to a fighter sub-class seems a pretty easy way to accomplish it, unless it's really just the[I] fluff[/I] of the warlord a person cares about and has to see it written down somewhere. [/QUOTE]

Verification