Archetypal vs. Menu-style characters

[Thanee]

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.

d20 modern also tries to go that way, and even though I do not like it in particular (especially for modern-style games, where I prefer a higher degree of control) how they did so, it's a good step into the right direction.

Tho, I would not want to have D&D with such a concept or in other words... D&D with such a concept would just be a different game for me (not necessarily a bad one, just different).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Yair]

I'm lazy. I want archetypes all bundled up and ready to play. I don't want menu-driven systems where I need to understand the finer points of the system to forge a character as it is in my imagination (BESM), not even a set of flavorless balanced-choices bundles ready to be admixtured and infused with personal flavor (Grim Tales). I want the archetypes pre-packaged, thank you.

I like menu-driven systems a graet deal for their elegance and flexibility (my favorite is Ars Magica), but ultmately I prefer simple archetypes I can jump into with no hussle and have relatively few choices. Just what 3e is

 

[diaglo]

if the player is willing to take 15 or so years out of the campaign (for humans) for their character and learn a new archetype... i'll let them

or 20 years for a halfling
or 30 years for a half-elf
or 40years for a dwarf
or 50 years for a gnome
or 120 years for an elf

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I chose archtypical - the game shoul play to its roots, while there are many other games out there for people who want menu driven games (the phrase made me wonder if this was about computer RPGs for a moment).

I have nothing against menu driven, most of the games I own use some variant thereof. But why change a game into something that is not?

The Auld Grump, speaking of menus, I think I'll take a prime of Ars Magica please...)

 

[Allanon]

I voted Archetypel for the same reason The Auld Grump states. D&D is D&D because it has Paladins, Wizards, Fighters, Clerics, Etc.

Besides I feel that most menu-driven games are harder for new players to grasp en get into. But this could just be my experience with a bunch of new players and Mutants & Masterminds.

 

[der_kluge]

This is why I like HARP. There are classes (professions) but they are really only molds by which you purchase all your abilities. You could be a "cleric" and basically make him be like a wizard very easily. And the classes are all so totally balanced, that you could just eliminate the concept of class without any house rules. You could just say "pick 20 skill categories", and that would basically solve the problem. Super easy.

 

[Psion]

Archetypal.

Two reasons.
1) It seems to me that most characters in menu games end up close to archetypes of mixes of archetypes anyways, just with more work or ommissions in doing so.
2) Archetypes can help you define the roles in a game, help directing the activities of the character and party, which can be conducive to a good game IME. (Select your archetypes carefully, though. The D&D party loadout is not the only possible selection of archtypes.)

 

[GlassJaw]

While I love menu-driven character creation, I do think core D&D should be class-based.

I do, however, believe that there is certainly a middle ground. I think the classes need to become more "generic". I think the best combination would be menus within classes. The new classes in Midnight are a great example of this.

There is only one caster class (Channeler) but it can be based on any of the three casting attributes. There is a ranger/woodsman class (Wildlander) but you choose from a variety of abilities to be a scout, tracker, wilderness warrior, hunter, etc. There is a ftr/monk class (Defender) that can be customized for a variety of fighting styles. It can even use weapons.

Many of the current classes end up being the same each time you play them. They are very "static" in the amount of variation allowed (unless of course you start piling on PrC's). There are also certain archetypes that can't be achieved with the current core classes. What if you don't want your rogue to have sneak attack? What if you don't want your bard to be able to cast spells but you want your fighter to be able to inspire his allies?

The Grim Tales class system can do all that but I don't ever see core D&D going that route, and that's ok. But there definitely needs to be more options within each class.

 

[GlassJaw]

Archetypes can help you define the roles in a game, help directing the activities of the character and party, which can be conducive to a good game IME.

Well I guess the real discussion is on the definition of class vs archetype. To me, a class is much more general, whereas an archetype is a specific concept.

Fighter or rogue may be classes but swashbuckler is an archtype (and one could even argue that there are many archtypes within swashbuckler).

I think core D&D should have specific classes but not assume any archetypes. The "fighter" should be able to be a lightly-armored swashbuckler, a heavily armored knight, or an armorless wrestler.

I have no problem with maintaining the iconic classes. I just see a need to introduce more flexibility within each class. I'm skeptical that this will happen because the more customization allowed, the less of a need for more crunchy stuff to flesh out classes. I'm not sure WotC will subscribe to that because it's not the greatest business model.

 

[vulcan_idic]

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.

I voted for menu based, but I wouldn't mind it staying archetyped. That said, I would like something more about customizing/creating a base class in the core rules. I have not found fanboy2000's above quoted comments to be at all accurate with regards to building brand new classes. What abilities are equal in value to others? Which ones are too powerful in combination? These issues plague me when I sit down to tinker. I want to make a new class that fits the campaign I want to run better than the out-of-the-box ones (i.e. a wild shaping rogue with no spells, or backstabbing, with alchemy on his class skill list) but I'm hesitant to do it because I'm unsure how this combination will stack up against the standard. I don't have a set of playtesters to help see it in play before I put it before my player (especially if it's supposed to be a surprise).

For this reason I would either like to have menus of roughly equal abilities to build classes freeform (or as a GM delineate acceptable combinations) or raise the curtain a bit on how they balance it so I can have some guidance on things to keep in mind when getting my hands dirty - along the lines of the guidance they give to DM's creating their own prestige classes.