Archetypal vs. Menu-style characters

[Tonguez]

I'm in the Menu crew myself, I use to play GURPS before 3e came out so that might explain that

personally I think 3e does a good job of mixing the two approaches - and the game works and is fun so thats the most important thing - a D20 system based on Talent trees and the ability to develop a whole range of paths from a core archetype would be the ultimate expression for me though

 

[Desdichado]

I voted for menu driven, but that was before I read Merric's post carefully and had only read the question. The question was: do you like archetypical chargen vs. menu driven chargen, but the question should have been, based on what it looks like he was really asking, do you like classes or point-based chargen.

I like classes. I don't like narrow, restrictive, or too few classes, or classes that aren't sufficiently "toolkit" in their approach. The ranger, for example, is a bad class because it doesn't really meet many people's idea of the woodsman/hunter archetype, and it's not sufficiently well set up to be anything other than a spellcasting, combat style weirdo.

Now it's not that the ranger is a bad class, it's just that there's no sufficiently menu-driven class that meets the woodsman archetype in a variety of different ways to suit the taste of the player. In other words, I don't want WotC to tell me what the archetype is all about and how to play it, I want them to facilitate my own interpretation of the archetype. To use the ranger as only one single example (I could do the same with several other classes.)

Conversely, a good class is the AU Totem Warrior, which has tons of flexibility and can be built in a number of different ways, all of them subtly, yet noticably, different. It's meets an archetype broadly, but it is a very menu driven design philosophy.

Of course, the other method is to add a lot more core classes. I guess with the Complete line of books, that's even official (although I'd been using stuff from d20 publishers to fill that gap already). That way you have lots of narrowly defined archetypes, but there are lots of them, not just a handful like the core rules have.

 

[maddman75]

I like menu driven. I think 3e is at its best when it has menu-driven classes, allowing you do make variations on various themes. The base classes are good at that in d20. The fighter gets to choose feats. Clerics choose thier domains. Wizards choose their specialty. Rogues, who rely on skills for much of their oomph, are menu-driven that way. Easy to build an acrobat, thief, spy, or diplomat out of the rogue class.

The other classes don't do nearly as well. Barbarians, paladins, rangers, druids, monks, and bards are sort of pidgeon-holed. But you regain that with the multiclassing rules. If you want a ranger who is a scout, take levels of rogue. If he's more of a fighting wilderness man, barbarian or fighter will help him out. Its one reason I removed all multiclassing restrictions. In my opinion, all it does is eliminate interesting character combinations. Getting rid of the MC penalty was my first house rule, when I saw that our group's elf ranger/druid was going to apply the penalty. The character wasn't munchy at all, he was going for an archetypical elf.

Overall, archetypes will remain as D&D is the gateway of RPGs, and archetypes are much easier for new players. To me, its easier to use a menu-driven system to construct the character I want than to try to hammer a collection of classes into my vision. But for a new player, they have no idea what they want or how to use a system.

 

[Thanee]

For D&D I prefer the archetypical approach, it's part of D&D, but in most other games I like what you call "menu driven" better.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Enkhidu]

Maybe its because my group ios full of tinkerers, but I the number of times I personally have played an "off the shelf" character (using the various incarnations of D&D classes) is, over the course of the last 15 years, 3. Every other time, the DM and I ended up making a significant enough change to the class that it really wasn't the class any more (including a 2e cleric that was so dismantled by the time we were done that even if I were to rebuild him using the admittedly more broad 3e rules I'd still have to create a class from the ground up).

Because of this, I'm one of those who leans heavily toward menu-driven games (though I think I'd be just as happy with archetypes broad enough to have menus of their own!).

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Some stuff about a Mystic Fencer

I think I'm going to have all my multiclass characters come up with a name for their particular class combination in this way. It's much more impressive to call yourself a Mystic Fencer, and it gives you a way to talk about what you do in-character. I think I'll make a house rule that says that all multiclassers should come up with something like this. Perhaps instead of PrC organizations I might focus on multiclass organizations that could subsume one or several prestige classes.

The Knights of the Eldritch Passage could be an order of warrior mages. Among their ranks we might find fighter/wizards, fighter/sorcerers, paladin/wizards, bards, bard multiclasses, swashbucker multiclasses, spellswords, eldritch knights, and other characters that mix magic and martial prowess. The various PrCs and multiclass mixes represent various "styles" that are either individual or commonplace in the organization. Perhaps the organization has factions. Maybe the spellswords in their heavy armour have philosophical disputes with the eldritch knights with their advanced spell progression. Maybe there are students that come to both groups in order to walk the "middle way."

I like threads like this that give me ideas on how to build in-game items of interest.

 

[PJ-Mason]

Defnitely the menu-man, myself. Mutants & Masteminds was a nice way to go about deconstruction a few of the uneeded cows of D&D, but many people want a less restrictive creation process than D&D, without going to a pure point system.

I think that Merric is wrong about there being no middle ground. In UA the generic classes are the perfect middle ground. 3 classes (warrior, expert, and spellcaster) that give you a basic concept, but then allow to you to pick your specific class abilities. This way you can have a fighter, but add abilities that make him a swashbuckler or heavy armor guy, or whatever you're looking for. If needs be, you can multiclass between them to get an even better mix of abilities. Thats a pretty darn good compromise between the two philosophies, if you ask me.

 

[Asmor]

I like classes. They're more classy.

Seriously, though. I think a combination is the best approach, but the foundation must remain classed.

My dislike of purely point-buy systems is three fold...

First, it makes it more difficult to create a well balanced character. Moderation isn't my strong point. For example, in Diablo, I have to assign all 5 points from levelling up to one attribute. Putting, say, 2 in strength and 1 in the rest is entirely too difficult for me. Classes help to ensure moderation, so you'll never be lacking in any areas.

Second, it just feels good to level up! It gives you something to look forward to, and it lets you see yourself becoming noticable stronger. If you just spend your experience points as you accrue them, the gains become extremely gradual and it's really not as satisfying IMHO.

Third, it's more difficult to judge power. It's harder for the GM to find an encounter of appriopriate difficulty, and it's harder for the player to size up and decide whether he's up to a particular challenge.

 

[Remathilis]

I prefer classed systems for one reason: it gives a character a defined focus. Example:

We played WEG's d6 Star Wars. Everyone was the same; lots of scattered points across alot of the same skills (pilot, blaster, dodge, etc.) We ended up almost exactly the same and no one had a niche or focus.

Flash Forward: d20 SW. We have defined roles: A solider/Force Adept, a Scoundrel, a Noble, a jedi guardian, and a jedi consular. We still have lots of cross ranks, but we know the scoundrel is the best pilot, the solider has the best to hit, and the noble is the master diplomat. It allows us to stand out and makes us feel more like we matter and aren't replacable.

While its frustrating to need a cleric to heal, a rogue to trapfind, etc. Luckily, the complete books have opened more options (cleric/druid/healer/favored soul, etc) so the variety is greater and PCs don't feel so boxed in.

 

[fanboy2000]

D&D is the archetypal class-based system. It should stay that way. There are plenty of menu-driven systems, people can look to those if they want to play classless D&D. Also, 3.5 makes it easy to customize a class, or build a new one. I like menu-driven character creation, just not in D&D.