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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 8235634" data-attributes="member: 7017304">I'd push back by saying: if a cleric is doing something completely different than a wizard in-fiction, they shouldn't use the same mechanics to represent it. Mechanics matter and refluffing has limits. Much the same way we have different rules for sneak attacks, two-weapon fighting and rage: because they are distinct in fiction, we use distinct mechanics to make sure they feel different. Making all of those regular weapon attacks and describing them differently will only go so far. You could make one really broad fighter class with a ton of feats, stances, and maneuvers to choose from, but you're losing the ease-of-entry benefit of classes if you do so.So if you want all spellcasters to be one class, then the difference between a cleric and a wizard (and a bard and a druid and warlock and a witch) should essentially be where they went to magic college. Clerics went to magic seminaries. Etc. Spell selection (possibly influenced by archetype) will go a long way, without leaning too hard on refluffing.On the other hand: most fantasy settings really don't have multiple kinds of magic, unless it was designed specifically for a game in order to provide differing mechanics. That is, it's never (that I've seen) fiction-based. So saying you'd much rather make DnD push people to picking one kind of magic and sticking with that... I can see that and it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me.</blockquote>

Verification