Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 5986073" data-attributes="member: 50304">To a matter of degree? Sure. To the same degree that the current 5E models Class-Background-Theme? Certainly not.So, because you choose to engage in a textbook Slippery Slope Fallacy taking any sort of reduction or compartmentalization approach to handling traditional classes as builds is BadWrong?I respectfully disagree.That entirely depends on what your definition of &quot;Class&quot; is. If Class is a large tent of options around some core backbone of distinct rolls (using Fighter, Rogue, Magic-User, and Cleric as cardinal points) without mandatory associations to Background or Theme slots then no, they certainly don't fit that criteria. If Class is a fully-supported combination of level-based abilities from a Super-Type (like the cardinal point Super Classes) plus a particular Background and Theme then yes, certainly.That's probably the biggest impediment to the discussion and the design going on at the moment - confusing &quot;class&quot; with &quot;build,&quot; just because that's what 1st Edition did with some things. It isn't like Barbarian, Paladin, Druids, or Ranger were classes either - they were sub-classes. In 2nd Ed you had &quot;kits.&quot; 3rd Edition lost that in favor of patchwork multiclassing and Prestige Classes.When it has a distinct niche (for example: Warrior, Holy-Man, Magician, Rogue) that doesn't so severely constrict your Background and Theme.The standard, while nebulous, should not be &quot;because I'm not a fan of that class.&quot; It should be &quot;I can cleanly construct it out of balanced modular components (that have multiple applications) without a ton of hassle.&quot;- Marty Lund</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mlund, post: 5986073, member: 50304"] To a matter of degree? Sure. To the same degree that the current 5E models Class-Background-Theme? Certainly not. So, because you choose to engage in a textbook [b]Slippery Slope Fallacy[/b] taking any sort of reduction or compartmentalization approach to handling traditional classes as builds is BadWrong? I respectfully disagree. That entirely depends on what your definition of "Class" is. If Class is a large tent of options around some core backbone of distinct rolls (using Fighter, Rogue, Magic-User, and Cleric as cardinal points) without mandatory associations to Background or Theme slots then no, they certainly don't fit that criteria. If Class is a fully-supported combination of level-based abilities from a Super-Type (like the cardinal point Super Classes) plus a particular Background and Theme then yes, certainly. That's probably the biggest impediment to the discussion and the design going on at the moment - confusing "class" with "build," just because that's what 1st Edition did with some things. It isn't like Barbarian, Paladin, Druids, or Ranger were classes either - they were [b]sub-classes[/b]. In 2nd Ed you had "kits." 3rd Edition lost that in favor of patchwork multiclassing and Prestige Classes. When it has a distinct niche (for example: Warrior, Holy-Man, Magician, Rogue) that doesn't so severely constrict your Background and Theme. The standard, while nebulous, should not be "because I'm not a fan of that class." It should be "I can cleanly construct it out of balanced modular components (that have multiple applications) without a ton of hassle." - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]

Verification