Archetypal vs. Menu-style characters

[The_Universe]

I like the archetypal system for D&D, although the relative ease of multiclassing has moved D&D a lot closer to menu-based.

Classes seem to be D&D (and D20's) Niche - and the strong archetypes that those classes provide must have *something* to do with why the game has been so successful within the RPG industry.

Others have said it well - menu based character creation is great...but it's not really D&D's idiom.

 

[Umbran]

I think core D&D should have specific classes but not assume any archetypes.

If you assume nothing, you effectively assume everything, and that's not good.

No rules-set does everything well. There will always be archetypes that are better supported, and those that work poorly under a given set of rules. It would be misleading at best, foolish at worst, to pretend that this wasn't so. If you aren't going to pretend it, might as well make a few assumptions and use them to your advantage.

In addition, no single game really needs the ability to reflect all archetypes. Each genre of fiction has a limited set that it commonly uses, and it uses them because they work. So long as your classes are flexible enough for the characters to be archetypal, yet still be unique and interesting individuals, there's no problem with making some assumptions.

 

[Seeker95]

Merric says there can be no middle ground, but I believe he is wrong, if by middle ground he means a synthesis.

I favor class-based, menu-driven character development.
Four archetype classes (and maybe even three*):
Warrior
Rogue
Mage
Priest

Every other class is based on these four archetypes. What you build is based on a wide range of menu options -- class-based and general Feats and Skills -- and flavor.

Want a druid? Be a Priest. Worship a nature deity. Select [plant] and [animal] based spells along the way. Want to be a Druid-Manimal? Make sure you take the wildshape Feat when it is available. More interested in being a weather druid? Take the elemental form Feat instead.

Want to be a monk? That would probably be a warrior who selects the Unarmed Combat Feat tree.

Want a Psion? That is a Mage with the Mental flavor Feat, instead of Scholar or Spontaneous Affinity Feats.

Pick your Archetypal Base.
Build your character from there.

*Three bases if you combine Priest and Mage into Caster, with [Divine Origin] being placed at the same level as the [Mental] [Scholar] and [Spontaneous] Affinity Feats.

 

[The_Gneech]

Well, I want HERO (i.e., "menu") to be the gaming standard, not D&D, so that sorta shows where my preferences are.

But since my group wants D&D, I actually play "archetype."

-The Gneech

 

[Quickleaf]

If you look at DrSpunnj's class spreadsheet, you'll find the D&D classes are unbalanced as is. In addition, the D&D classes are pretty restrictive. And if you want options, you've got to buy special "class" books. I think a lot of the really cool options (menus) for characters are found in those class books. There's no reason (besides money-making) why those abilities couldn't be rolled into a core book, providing great flexibility for the core classes.

A couple posts have mentioned wanting a menu-based system with pre-made archetypes demonstrating how the menus could be used to create "traditional" roles. I think organizing abilities according to classes is a good idea. Check out the Ultimate CLasses by Szatany at the WOTC website for a good example of how this might be done. Also, there needs to be a way for a spy-archetype character to be better at disguise than a character who has taken disguise as a class skill.

I definitely think that there should be an open window for the players to create whatever archetypes (or lack thereof) they want. One way to do this is writing down a brief statement about your character, like "looks good and knows it." Whenever attempting any action involving that statement the character gets a bonus. This would ensure that each player's PC is the best at their concept's skills.

 

[Gez]

I like a mix of the both -- several archetypal classes, with menu-driven variants within each class.

Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed is a good example of this: look at the Witch, the Champion, and the Totem Warrior.

3.5. made a shy move in that direction, with the Ranger's fighting style in the PH, and in UA, the Totem Barbarians, the alternate specialist wizards.

I've house-ruled several similar things IMC.

 

[Psion]

If you look at DrSpunnj's class spreadsheet, you'll find the D&D classes are unbalanced as is.

I will?

No, I'll find that someone thinks that you can really tell me how balanced a given set of abilities will be in my particular game, and that it won't vary between my game and anyone elses, and that the value of a set of abilities can fairly be evaluated by adding up some guesswork values assigned to their component abilities.

Let's just say confidence is not high.

 

[Umbran]

If you look at DrSpunnj's class spreadsheet, you'll find the D&D classes are unbalanced as is.

More correctly, if you look at it and you agree with his breakdown, you'll find that. But that agreement may be a bit hard to come by.

I haven't seen this particular spreadsheet. However, since it's done in a spreadsheet, I would guess that it's broken down D&D into some variant of each character ability being worth some form of "point cost". I also expect that the cost for any ability is constant. If so, it would comprise a major flaw in the analysis.

You see, flat point costs cannot take synergies into account. Some abilities are worth more (or less) when tied to other abilities. The ability to wear heavy armor is great when linked with weapon use. The ability to wear heavy armor isn't so hot with arcane spellcasting. In general, the value of character abilities depend upon context, and so are not constant. Balance in D&D has a bit of art attached to it that spreadsheets don't generally get.

And here's the real basic reason why - "balance" is a subjective term. Two classes are balanced if, in the long term in a varied campaign, they each have roughly equal effectiveness overall. Unless you limit yourself only to considering combat, "equal effectiveness" is a subjective term, which cannot be dealt with by machines.

 

[francisca]

Archetypes. Really when you get down to it, I'm a D&D player, not a general RPG player. I have tried other systems from time to time, but I like archtypes, and D&D.

 

[Asmor]

I will?

No, I'll find that someone thinks that you can really tell me how balanced a given set of abilities will be in my particular game, and that it won't vary between my game and anyone elses, and that the value of a set of abilities can fairly be evaluated by adding up some guesswork values assigned to their component abilities.

Let's just say confidence is not high.

Man, it's times like these I wish I could post images in this forum... You know, like that pouty kid with the big bald patch on his head with "PWN3D" in big ugly block letters that look even worse because of the really low JPEG compression. Then I'd be the the king of wit.