Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5816273" data-attributes="member: 7635">I, on the other hand, find classes systems tend toward either hyper-specialization (I do only one thing, but I literally cannot fail at it) or general-suck (I put points in everything and have no inherent weaknesses, but I can't succeed on any task unless I roll well). So the first thing a class system should do is define the archetype and position in the game world. The fighter is adept at combat, the wizard is a physical weakling who can destroy you with his mind, etc. Classes can also vary in the level of exactness (a fighter is fairly generic, a monk is defined by his cultural baggage and fighting style). All that said, I think cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue should be fairly broad and accommodating various types (a fighter can be a dual-wielder, tank, or archer, a rogue can be a swashbuckler, scout, or thief, etc.) Other classes are a bit more restricted (rangers, paladins, druids, etc have more powers and tighter archetypes, thus less customization). For those looking for ultimate generalization, multi-classing is an option.I don't need the game as fidgety as 3e, nor as tightly defined as 4e. Something like AD&D with consistent, swappable rules would be nice.</blockquote>