Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 6641515" data-attributes="member: 6704184">This is one of those basic premises things. I agree with a lot of what I've seen you say on other topics, but on this, we're just polar opposites. IMO, it is strictly better if there are at least two ways to mechanically represent the fluff of a given character concept, and those mechanics are distinct, and both well made. I strongly believe in being able to mechanically represent minor flavor distinctions, whenever possible. I also don't think that there's anything wrong with players deciding (within the campaign framework, as always) to reflavor their mechanics. I don't see any need to DM input on that process, outside of the input the DM has on all fluff decisions. ie, &quot;that backstory doesn't really work with the group you're trying to fit it into, perhaps if we...&quot;As for the Ranger and Paladin, I have always viewed the Ranger and Druid as getting spells through devotion, albeit not through prayer. Personally, I see the game as being improved by having the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster and multi-classing rules that allow you to mix wizard with fighter or rogue. Because a rogue(theif)/wizard, a rogue(assassin)/wizard and an Arcane Trickster will all play differently from one another, allowing the player to choose what playstyle they want to use to represent their concept of a magically inclined thief/assassin/whatever. And it accomplishes that while allowing players who want to keep things simple to just pick a class and subclass and play, while other players and tweak and fiddle, and both can play at the same table with no problems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 6641515, member: 6704184"] This is one of those basic premises things. I agree with a lot of what I've seen you say on other topics, but on this, we're just polar opposites. IMO, it is strictly better if there are at least two ways to mechanically represent the fluff of a given character concept, and those mechanics are distinct, and both well made. I strongly believe in being able to mechanically represent minor flavor distinctions, whenever possible. I also don't think that there's anything wrong with players deciding (within the campaign framework, as always) to reflavor their mechanics. I don't see any need to DM input on that process, outside of the input the DM has on all fluff decisions. ie, "that backstory doesn't really work with the group you're trying to fit it into, perhaps if we..." As for the Ranger and Paladin, I have always viewed the Ranger and Druid as getting spells through devotion, albeit not through prayer. Personally, I see the game as being improved by having the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster [I]and[/I] multi-classing rules that allow you to mix wizard with fighter or rogue. Because a rogue(theif)/wizard, a rogue(assassin)/wizard and an Arcane Trickster will all play differently from one another, allowing the player to choose what playstyle they want to use to represent their concept of a magically inclined thief/assassin/whatever. And it accomplishes that while allowing players who want to keep things simple to just pick a class and subclass and play, while other players and tweak and fiddle, and both can play at the same table with no problems. [/QUOTE]

Verification