Making druids a separate class when they're really just celtic priests

>Making samurai a class when they're really fighters with light armour and 1 weapon spec

> Making rogues a class when they're really worse fighters with skill anyone should be able to do

>Making fighter a class in a game where everyone is fighting eventually

>Making anything into a class when you can just be a battle mage

>making knights a class when they're just Samurai with clunky heavy armor and shitty weapons with steel that haven't been folded 10 gorillion times

ecks dee

>making knight and mage a separate classes when they both are clearly bourgeois

>Making classes

> Making when you can just play RAW

>making anything into a class when it makes no sense for warriors to not learn magic, mages to not learn how to wear armor and fight, and anyone to not be very religious in a world where gods exist and afterlife is a serious business
In an ideal game, every adventurer would start as some shade of fighter/thief, while magic is a reward for completing rituals, making pilgrimages, taking and keeping mystic vows, doing gods' work, cutting your dick off and so on.

>Rules when you can just freeform

>Playing arpeegees when you could do something productive with your life

>doing anything in life when the universe at some point will stop existing

I personally prefer magic to be a process that takes both an innate (and very rare) gift AND decades of study and practice to be used, and for its unnatural energies to be taxing on your body and strength (not to mention the twelve hours of bookworming a day for 30+ years).

I also despise settings where gods and afterlife are well-known business. They should be a mystery, and divine magic should just be a form of ritual magic where the actual contribution of faith and divine intervetions is debatable.

>doing something productive with your life when you could pay monthly fees to play a catboy in Final Fantasy XIV and roleplay gay sex with fat american women

Well, since we're talking about d&d, you either rework the mechanics to do it my way or rewrite fluff to do it your way, because neither is actually supported by the game.

>celtic priests
We don't know what the druids were, other than what Cesar wrote of them. And he specifically avoided calling them 'priests', which would have been the Roman thing to do. The romans tended towards heavy-handed interpretations that fitted foreign peoples and concept into Roman terms instead of trying to understand them on their own premises.

I have nothing else to add. Just wanted to clarify that misinterpretation of the druid's role in Celtic society.

>Folding a sword a gorillion times when really they should just fucking import their metals from other countries and make them normally

>Existing when every existence is irrelevant to the universe, even the universe's own existence is irrelevant

>Stats don't affect other stats depending on how high or low they are

Strength training and being fit makes you healthier. Going too strong makes you a bit unhealthier. Str and Con need a loose tie together.

Intelligent people can make connections to things easier, and logic can easily substitute common sense. Int and Wis need tied.

Using a miglascion
An rangraving emigrander who chürertises boanímamitals.
>pronotipsion
A hesexiliate ononglolinge who graphattis examalles and tycophantitans
>eelthonist
An angixalia yogamástechy who vispeteases braciophules.
>signӕgis
An aciclerito whose vicacentre ciphelters auspitznas and auspichaves.
>skelevator
An escalifter who dumboucages bonveyorms and calalumers.
>schagermystic
An anempieren purealist who holopectiveres khenossial aqulinins.
>morquerón
A thatonghoid firembius who excaborts whisconic chrebilians.
>barberain
A mersarian jacculatext who bareards and schizoscuttles.
>czarwyphe
An ardalpitten lochlife who previvaults tubangonem sornsumen.
>situritán
A swagodin oppressiopeia who hierapparchs whollow chasmorten.

Is this Esperanto?

But I'm not talking about D&D

Well, what are you talking about?

My own system, which happens to have druids, wizards, divine casters and mundane fighters among its character archetypes and support the ideas I've described both in lore and in game mechanics

>Making fighters and magic-users separate classes when they just fight with magic

>>making knight and mage a separate classes when they both are clearly bourgeois
>bourgeois
>knights and mages == middleclass city dwellers or upholders of capitalism.
>in a pre-enlightment, pre-imperialism (bar Islamic/turkish imperialism) feudal society.
Nigger do you know anything about hack german philosophy?

Knights and mages are clearly in the same class yes but that's because they are a part of the second estate.

>My own system

Modern people think the Nobility were bourgeois, because they don't fucking realize the bourgeois are the merchants and guys who own shops or own entire trade routes.

...

These are all completely fair points though.

There's really no reason to have other classes than "Fighting Man" "Sneaky Man" "Wizard" and "Divine Caster."

Everything else is just superfluous obercomplication that could be better accomplished with specialization within the aforementioned class archetypes

>specialization within the aforementioned class archetypes
Specialization is easier to accomplish, and for new players to dig into, if these specializations are separate classes.

Hell, wizard and divinve caster are are both casters, with the distinction of drawing their powers from different sources in the fluff, but mechanically they work basically the same.

I prefer
Fighter
Specialist
Magic User
Used by Magic (cleric)

That's not realistic at all though.

>but mechanically they work basically the same
If your system sucks.

Or if you can write a good setting.

>There's really no reason to have other classes than "Fighting Man" "Sneaky Man" "Wizard" and "Divine Caster."
No, there is just need for one class: bard

It's poor man's communism and it's a shame because stupid fucking people get sucked into it without having any fucking clue about how it works.