But that's exactly the thing. There IS a choice, only it's not you making it - it's the writers. To say Astarion should've been a Bard is looking at it from the opposite direction imo, because the choice to make him a Rogue was deliberate. Him being a Rogue has expressive power. It evokes the imagery of an agile and skillful predator, tailing his prey down a dark side alley or worming his way into the good graces of unsuspecting nobles with his sharp wit. Nothing about Astarion evokes musicality or magic.
Or, way more probably, they wanted a rougue because it's a stample of D&D like fighter and wizard, and just picked one. Which is even way more plausible honestly.
Originally Posted by Llengrath
That's the thing - I don't. With the removal of commitment, it becomes as you write - Astarion can be anything. His class is demoted from an integral component of his character to a mere suggestion.
Or it can be a gameplay factor for someone, it can be a known "messing up with things" for others, and it can be "fixing the chracter" for others.
Originally Posted by Llengrath
I dare say this is intuitive to any enthusiast of ttrpgs or video games based on them (like, say, Baldur's Gate). One's class isn't just their set of skills to be changed like clothing; it's their life.
Thanks for excluding be from being a ttrpg enthusiast, I definitely have a library full of rulebooks of different games just for show.
Originally Posted by Llengrath
The question remains - is it worth sacrificing character integrity to slightly better accommodate more casual audiences who don't care as much? As someone who cares, my answer is no.
As someone who will spend 500+ hours in this game and is not even remotely a casual, and cares about it enough to buy the collector and take a vacation from work to play it, my answer is yes.
Do you realize that from your response it looks that every single person who likes this rule is a casual who shits on the game?
