Manange Attachments...or is that just for CS Accounts...Asmor said:
Last edited:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Archetypal vs. Menu-style characters
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Ry
Explorer
I feel things are too menu-driven as it is; I've seen very few single-classed characters in my 3e campaigns (except for players who don't know the system well). With feats and skills added into the mix, I think it's very menu-driven.
What I would love to see is a stronger focus on archetypes in the PHB (classes, with all feats restricted by class), and the system to make those classes squarely in the DMG (menu). Along the same lines, I'd like to see more of a focus on single-class characters / archetypes in what we call the core rules.
Maybe it's too much to ask, but I'd also like to see monsters built via a class (archetypes) system balanced to the one used for PC classes. (Death to hit dice/CR disparity).
What I would love to see is a stronger focus on archetypes in the PHB (classes, with all feats restricted by class), and the system to make those classes squarely in the DMG (menu). Along the same lines, I'd like to see more of a focus on single-class characters / archetypes in what we call the core rules.
Maybe it's too much to ask, but I'd also like to see monsters built via a class (archetypes) system balanced to the one used for PC classes. (Death to hit dice/CR disparity).
DCIronlich
First Post
Classes v. Menu Driven
I think that D&D should remain class-based for several reasons: 1) in keeping with the traditional game; 2) classes make intuitive sense to new gamers; and 3) too many options slow down character/monster generation. Personally, I am beginning to feel overwhelmed with the sheer number of feats and pestige classes that D&D offers. It isn't uncommon for my players and I to forget a feat, immunity, class ability, etc during combat that could have "turned the tide." While options are largely good, there can always be too much of a good thing.
I think that D&D should remain class-based for several reasons: 1) in keeping with the traditional game; 2) classes make intuitive sense to new gamers; and 3) too many options slow down character/monster generation. Personally, I am beginning to feel overwhelmed with the sheer number of feats and pestige classes that D&D offers. It isn't uncommon for my players and I to forget a feat, immunity, class ability, etc during combat that could have "turned the tide." While options are largely good, there can always be too much of a good thing.
Arnwyn
First Post
For D&D? Archetypal, all the way.
In fact, for anything in the "medieval/fantasy" genre, I (personally) would never accept anything other than archetypal characters.
For the "sci-fi/futuristic" genre, on the other hand, I would only accept the menu-based approach. IMO, archetypes are completely inappropriate for anything in the modern/futuristic genre.
In fact, for anything in the "medieval/fantasy" genre, I (personally) would never accept anything other than archetypal characters.
For the "sci-fi/futuristic" genre, on the other hand, I would only accept the menu-based approach. IMO, archetypes are completely inappropriate for anything in the modern/futuristic genre.
It is worth noting that although 3e has menu-style elements, few of those elements are actually significant compared to the abilities the basic class has.
Weapon Focus is great, but by 20th level, the specialised fighter has a "massive" +2 bonus to hit and +4 to damage from feats, whilst from the class the hit bonus is +20, and the damage from magic weapons (not related to the class system) dwarfs that of the feats.
Many of the other feats are so specialised in usage that the greater bonuses just come up infrequently. (e.g. Whirlwind attack requires precise placement of opponents.)
For a menu-based system, you have to decide how much "spellcasting" is worth. When you come to major components of the system, this become very, very difficult.
As Umbran and Psion note, synergies are not taken into account. Or, if they, most menu systems get around them by assuming a point cost for the synergy.
We, in fact, have this in 3e. Has anyone played an Ogre Sorcerer? No? Why not? Oh, because the Level Adjustment is way too high? Yes, indeed. It assumes the Ogre Barbarian or Ogre Fighter combination, not the Ogre Sorcerer combination.
Take the Evasion ability. It can be valued at a certain amount because of the good Reflex progression the rogue has. Is that value still valid for a character with a poor Reflex save?
The complexity of the interaction of the major abilities is something that is very, very hard to balance from a point-based viewpoint.
However, with an archetypal class you can examine the abilities in relation to the other abilities the class has and thus decide whether the class is balanced.
Of course, multiclassing (a menu-based feature) distorts this somewhat, which is why the 3e designers made so many mistakes with 3e - all those toploaded classes (ranger, barbarian, etc) which characters would only take a level in... with 3.5e, the implications of the hybrid system that 3e uses were more clear and the adjustments could be made.
One of the chief reasons I prefer the archetypal class system is that the classes are more efficient than those created by a menu-driven system, and, knowing the abilities that the class has gained, you can be more inventive in the higher level abilities the class gained without worrying about them being inappropriately gained by other characters.
Cheers!
Weapon Focus is great, but by 20th level, the specialised fighter has a "massive" +2 bonus to hit and +4 to damage from feats, whilst from the class the hit bonus is +20, and the damage from magic weapons (not related to the class system) dwarfs that of the feats.
Many of the other feats are so specialised in usage that the greater bonuses just come up infrequently. (e.g. Whirlwind attack requires precise placement of opponents.)
For a menu-based system, you have to decide how much "spellcasting" is worth. When you come to major components of the system, this become very, very difficult.
As Umbran and Psion note, synergies are not taken into account. Or, if they, most menu systems get around them by assuming a point cost for the synergy.
We, in fact, have this in 3e. Has anyone played an Ogre Sorcerer? No? Why not? Oh, because the Level Adjustment is way too high? Yes, indeed. It assumes the Ogre Barbarian or Ogre Fighter combination, not the Ogre Sorcerer combination.
Take the Evasion ability. It can be valued at a certain amount because of the good Reflex progression the rogue has. Is that value still valid for a character with a poor Reflex save?
The complexity of the interaction of the major abilities is something that is very, very hard to balance from a point-based viewpoint.
However, with an archetypal class you can examine the abilities in relation to the other abilities the class has and thus decide whether the class is balanced.
Of course, multiclassing (a menu-based feature) distorts this somewhat, which is why the 3e designers made so many mistakes with 3e - all those toploaded classes (ranger, barbarian, etc) which characters would only take a level in... with 3.5e, the implications of the hybrid system that 3e uses were more clear and the adjustments could be made.
One of the chief reasons I prefer the archetypal class system is that the classes are more efficient than those created by a menu-driven system, and, knowing the abilities that the class has gained, you can be more inventive in the higher level abilities the class gained without worrying about them being inappropriately gained by other characters.
Cheers!
Archetypal and Menu-Driven
I think we can get the best of both worlds (classed and classless) with flexible classes. Currently, the Fighter has a flexible list of bonus feats, the Rogue has a flexible list of skills, and the Wizard has a flexible list of spells. Those are all good starting points, but I'd like to see all class abilities as bonus feats (or talents, with no distinction between the two) and more stats implemented as skills (e.g., BAB as Melee Combat and Ranged Combat skills).
Then the rules could spell out exactly which feats and skills would go into each variant of the archetype: Conan-esque barbarian, Galahad-esque paladin, Faramir-esque ranger, etc.
I think we can get the best of both worlds (classed and classless) with flexible classes. Currently, the Fighter has a flexible list of bonus feats, the Rogue has a flexible list of skills, and the Wizard has a flexible list of spells. Those are all good starting points, but I'd like to see all class abilities as bonus feats (or talents, with no distinction between the two) and more stats implemented as skills (e.g., BAB as Melee Combat and Ranged Combat skills).
Then the rules could spell out exactly which feats and skills would go into each variant of the archetype: Conan-esque barbarian, Galahad-esque paladin, Faramir-esque ranger, etc.
I like both approaches. They both have pros & cons.
I think you could have a good game that combined both approaches, but I think I prefer to choose one or the other.
I don't see any reason to change D&D's original approach. When I want a different approach, I'll play a different system.
I think you could have a good game that combined both approaches, but I think I prefer to choose one or the other.
I don't see any reason to change D&D's original approach. When I want a different approach, I'll play a different system.
Asmor
First Post
Psion said:Are you mocking me or him?
Either way, I may have come off a little hostile. It was not my intention to say "PWN3D" so much as to merely point out that putting some numbers in a spreadsheet gives it weight of fact.
I wasn't really mocking anyone in particular, except maybe myself.
Similar Threads
