Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mecheon" data-source="post: 9354667" data-attributes="member: 6801776">Just, going to remind you, we're talking about Class Identity in this topic. How distinct each class isSo, yeah, they can't fit in everywhere. But.... That's good? Like, that's specifically what the thread is asking? &quot;Is this class specific enough it has its own tropes, own ideas, own stance&quot;. That's identityA warlock uses magic because they've cut a deal with someone else. A druid uses magic because they follow the old ways of nature. A sorcerer uses magic because they are born to wield magic, due to their historyThey all use magic Because of something, not just using magic, and those elements build an identity to that class. How oother folks will feel about them, how their magic will be used, what other people doing similar magic may do.How the wider market presents its classes in games is certainly relevant to talking about how D&amp;D does it, even if we go beyond Pathfinder to &quot;Its high point caused an actual visible blip on all TTRPG sales&quot; giant World of WarcraftI mean, that's one way you can build a fighter but, you said it up thread. Fighters aren't just that. So they aren't that identity because, they can be something completely different.Y'see the problem? Fighters being the everyman robs them of an identity their own. And its absolutely easy to give them one, you've put it to paper, but then along comes &quot;Well, we've gone and shoved this trope into the Fighter class now&quot; and that identity is ruined again, due to it having to play as the holding bag for being generic. 5E ruins that identity you've given it by going &quot;Well, here's the Arcane Archer, and its a Fighter now&quot;, completely destroying the defending your companions, leading the charge, and not using magical powers all in one fell swoopFighters and their subclasses should be recognisable as a Fighter, not &quot;Huh that's basically my World of Warcraft hunter, thought that'd make more sense as a Ranger&quot;. You couldn't put a Marksman Hunter under World of Warcraft's Warrior, the closest equivilent to Fighter, but D&amp;D basically lets it happen</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mecheon, post: 9354667, member: 6801776"] Just, going to remind you, we're talking about Class Identity in this topic. How distinct each class is So, yeah, they can't fit in everywhere. But.... That's good? Like, that's specifically what the thread is asking? "Is this class specific enough it has its own tropes, own ideas, own stance". That's identity A warlock uses magic because they've cut a deal with someone else. A druid uses magic because they follow the old ways of nature. A sorcerer uses magic because they are born to wield magic, due to their history They all use magic Because of something, not just using magic, and those elements build an identity to that class. How oother folks will feel about them, how their magic will be used, what other people doing similar magic may do. How the wider market presents its classes in games is certainly relevant to talking about how D&D does it, even if we go beyond Pathfinder to "Its high point caused an actual visible blip on all TTRPG sales" giant World of Warcraft I mean, that's one way you can build a fighter but, you said it up thread. Fighters aren't just that. So they aren't that identity because, they can be something completely different. Y'see the problem? Fighters being the everyman robs them of an identity their own. And its absolutely easy to give them one, you've put it to paper, but then along comes "Well, we've gone and shoved this trope into the Fighter class now" and that identity is ruined again, due to it having to play as the holding bag for being generic. 5E ruins that identity you've given it by going "Well, here's the Arcane Archer, and its a Fighter now", completely destroying the defending your companions, leading the charge, and not using magical powers all in one fell swoop Fighters and their subclasses should be recognisable as a Fighter, not "Huh that's basically my World of Warcraft hunter, thought that'd make more sense as a Ranger". You couldn't put a Marksman Hunter under World of Warcraft's Warrior, the closest equivilent to Fighter, but D&D basically lets it happen [/QUOTE]

Verification