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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6509482" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure how much this is definitional fiat - which is fine if that's how you want to use the words - and how much it goes beyond that.I think choosing to be a bow fighter, though, who favours DEX over STR and lighter over heavier armours; or to be an enchantment mage rather than a fire mage who chooses Charm, Hold, etc rather than Burning Hands, Fireball, etc; makes a fairly big difference to how a character plays. Some of that is about pure flavour, but in D&D quite a bit is about mechanics. For instance, the combat rules for bows are different from the combat rules for melee combat (range rules, cover/concealment rules, etc). And a firemage tries to best foes by depleting their hit points, whereas an enchanter tries to best them by bypassing their hit points. (D&D doesn't generally use "mental health points" to resolve fighting of the effects of enchantment.)These differences don't obtain in every RPG: they aren't part of HeroQuest Revised, for instance, and aren't part of Marvel Heroic. But to build and play a character in D&D you really need to have some sort of handle on them.These are the sorts of features of the game that role labels try and provide guidance on. For instance, the typical firemage is a striker, whereas the typical enchanter is a controller. 30-something years ago Lewis Pulsipher, writing in White Dwarf, drew the distinction by using the terms "artillery" and (from memory) "anti-personnel". He also linked the mechanical contrast to an aesthetic one, when he wrote that "Charming a dragon is elegant, but blowing it up is more exciting." (An assertion that is stuck in my memory to this day.)</blockquote>

Verification