Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 9353908" data-attributes="member: 92511">I must say, I'm kind of baffled by the perspective, it seems, was meant by the OP and understood by a good number of posters.From where I sit, the &quot;most identity&quot; would naturally come from the classes that have the BROADEST and (as it's been put throughout the thread) &quot;generic&quot; class story. e.g. The Fighter fights! The Mage uses spells! They can incorporate the widest number of possible characters.... somehow the MOST potential for the most number of possible characters, does NOT equal &quot;most identity?!&quot; Conversely, the &quot;LEAST identity,&quot; what the OP was asking for (and then left out the class that people overwhelmingly agreed would lead), would be those classes that contain within them the LEAST potential. The least number of character types, because it is the most narrowly defined narrative. It could be awash in specialty mechanics, all its own (and most are), but mostly -or the most egregious- still a one-trick pony. What is the Barbarian without Rage? Fighter in a fur bikini. What is a Paladin without smites? Fighter in some heavy armor. What is a Sorcerer without its innate &quot;magical origin&quot;? Another Mage that uses spells.&nbsp; The identity of a class has nothing to do with its mechanics. You can have a fantastically complicated, mechanical, class....with a &quot;found in one place in a given fantasy world. There are ten of them across the continent.&quot; And they would have, seems to me/from my perspective, LESS identity than a fighter with a sword and spear or a mage with their staff and spellbook, who could be found just about anywhere.&nbsp; &nbsp; No. I disagree with the bulk of the views presented herein. The Fighter and the Wizard are not close to the &quot;least identity&quot; classes. It seems entirely counterintuitive to how one would view the game and idea of &quot;identity.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 9353908, member: 92511"] I must say, I'm kind of baffled by the perspective, it seems, was meant by the OP and understood by a good number of posters. From where I sit, the "most identity" would naturally come from the classes that have the BROADEST and (as it's been put throughout the thread) "generic" class story. e.g. The Fighter fights! The Mage uses spells! They can incorporate the widest number of possible characters.... somehow the MOST potential for the most number of possible characters, does NOT equal "most identity?!" Conversely, the "LEAST identity," what the OP was asking for (and then left out the class that people overwhelmingly agreed would lead), would be those classes that contain within them the LEAST potential. The least number of character types, because it is the most narrowly defined narrative. It could be awash in specialty mechanics, all its own (and most are), but mostly -or the most egregious- still a one-trick pony. What is the Barbarian without Rage? Fighter in a fur bikini. What is a Paladin without smites? Fighter in some heavy armor. What is a Sorcerer without its innate "magical origin"? Another Mage that uses spells. The identity of a class has nothing to do with its mechanics. You can have a fantastically complicated, mechanical, class....with a "found in one place in a given fantasy world. There are ten of them across the continent." And they would have, seems to me/from my perspective, LESS identity than a fighter with a sword and spear or a mage with their staff and spellbook, who could be found just about anywhere. No. I disagree with the bulk of the views presented herein. The Fighter and the Wizard are not close to the "least identity" classes. It seems entirely counterintuitive to how one would view the game and idea of "identity." [/QUOTE]

Verification