Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Georlik Jan 05, 2015 15:29:18	Going back in time, we see that the basic four classes (Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric and Thief) were somewhat close to the personification of a specific cliche. A little rant I am a kind of grongard myself, so I often ask players - what kind of feeling they want to evoke when they play a certain kind of character. From my experience the "core four" is more than enough to implement all kinds of heroes, but I have to admit that most players like to have a wide range of options. But the thing is that fluff is not always the same as the game mechanics, e.g.: Land Druid (being a priest of Old Faith and all) has to invest into Wisdom, Constitution and Dexterity mainly, which leaves a very little room for vast knowledge and social graces. Moon Druid in the meantime (being a savage incarnation of Nature's wrath) has full freedom to invest in mental attributes, which makes him a better negotiator, as well as a more knowledgeable person. Well, I can surely agree that some class features do add up to the intended representation, but still it bothers me that attributes do not fully represent their intended purpose.
#2 bawylie Jan 05, 2015 15:44:29	No.    Look again. Particularly here.
#3 Karnos Jan 05, 2015 18:54:24	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #3) bawylie	Karnos wrote:
#5 bawylie Jan 05, 2015 20:29:33	Truly though, I'm addressing this question:   "Don't you also have a feeling that some classes look like they represent sheer game mechanics and have little-to-no image support (with forced attribute dependency), whilst other old and distinctive tropes are ignored?"   I don't feel that way. And I offered a stroll down pre-gen lane because these characters are created by us, here on these forums. And because they become the new iconics the moment they do anything memorable, noble, dastardly, heroic, etc.    I thought our OP here might've lost sight of the forest for the trees & thought that our Pre-Gen repository might change his perspective. Anyway that's what I hoped.
#6 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 5:39:00	Agreed, Brad. (And I got your point...)   I think this is just a variant of the other "5e characters have no depth" thread. Of which, I still disagree wholeheartedly. In fact, I believe the exact opposite to be true.
#7 Diffan Jan 06, 2015 6:34:58	Georlik wrote:
#8 autolycus Jan 06, 2015 6:38:15	Isn't this exactly what d20 Modern did?   The Strong Hero: Powerful and good at combat, the strong hero typically relies on a high strength score. The Fast Hero: Quick and nimble, the fast hero typically relies on a high dexterity score. The Tough Hero: Able to shrug off the most damage, the tough hero typically relies on a high constitution score. The Smart Hero: Brilliant and skillful, the smart hero typically relies on a high intelligence score. The Dedicated Hero: Strong willed and alert, the dedicated hero typically relies on a high wisdom score. The Charismatic Hero: As charming smooth talkers, charismatic heroes typically rely on high charisma scores.
#9 Georlik Jan 06, 2015 8:42:18	bawylie wrote:
#10 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 8:54:59	Georlik wrote:
#11 cowleymen Jan 06, 2015 19:38:29	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#12 beowulfvii Jan 11, 2015 14:51:17	Hrmm, I'm not a fan of the attributes-as-archetypes system in general. It's always bugged me as pigeonholing. A sword is a sword, and magic is magic, and there are a hundred ways to use either of them. I want to play the smart figher who uses tactics, maneuvers, and toys over muscle. I want to play the bulky mage who focuses his magic inward and rips through ethereal constructs with his bare hands.   I prefer to think of classes as being more like social classes, (military, clergy, outsider, etc.), focusing on different aspects of the world. Attributes are the "styles" of talents used within those circles.
#13 ankiyavon Jan 11, 2015 15:10:17	Diffan wrote:
#14 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 8:10:14	ankiyavon wrote:
#15 ankiyavon Jan 12, 2015 11:59:12	ChrisCarlson wrote: