Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8372580" data-attributes="member: 7030755">I respect that you feel this way, and understand wanting a game to reinforce archetypes.  That being said, I think this is a poor argument for a few reasons<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You reference racial asi as a legacy of 1e AD&D, but 1e had a host of other design elements to help reinforce archetype, some of which remain in some form and most of which don't.  These include things like class, level, and multiclass restrictions, some of which were imposed more to "balanced" rather than to reinforce archetype.  Further, many common archetypes were not supported by ability changes--gnomes and half-elves, received no penalties or bonuses, elves could not be rangers, dwarves could not be clerics, etc.  The point is, the game has moved away from this kind of design since 2e and then certainly 3e.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A game that is more a toolkit does not foreclose archetypes but rather expands the possible range.  A new player can still say to their dm, I want to play Legolas, or Raistlin, and the game can still still easily accommodate  a 1st level version of those.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Because most ASI variation comes via stat generation and class progression, and because ASI leads to an incremental boost in die rolls over time, ASI is not an effective way to reinforce archetype</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the number of races available complicate/expand the archetypes of classic fantasy, so stat increases often do not even really correlate with any pre-given archetype (for example, without looking, what are the standard ASI for, say, a water genasi?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I would agree that the designers should include other optional abilities so that players and dms can create characters based on archetype, whether those hew to classic fantasy or to something else</li> </ul>The definition of fantasy has long past expanded beyond Tolkein + Appendix N.  And we probably have the popular mashup that is dnd most to thank for that expansion.  Making a game that showed that a wide variety of fantasy, pulp, and even sci-fi archetypes could sit next to one another without too much difficulty, and even be fun, along with the proliferation of additional options (partly due to the business of selling products) has created a situation where the designers need to create a game that can include and accommodate  the old archetypes (whatever those were), but also the many other sources of fantasy imagination, many of them inspired by dnd itself.One thing I see in this conversation that is similar to the debate over "canon" is the need for their to be an official stamp one's own game preferences, and the feeling of loss if that official stamp is removed.  If one wants the feeling of classic dnd with its archetypes, there are not shortage of excellently produced b/x clones along with adventures that rival anything that was produced during the late 70s and early 80s.  These were all products not available during the beginning of wotc's tenure as official publishers, for example.  So I find it confounding that wotc's position on the matter is experienced as a loss (even though I obviously cannot argue with the reality of anyone else's experience).</blockquote>

Verification