Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5829754" data-attributes="member: 82160">Correct.But differentiation in competence in social settings, exploration and combat was something that differentiated classes by default.   Fighters were by defualt bad at charming the king, then a bard would be.Alignment also helped differentiate classes, Paladins had to follow their dieties faith, Druids used to have to be true neutral or they'd lose their abilities, rogues could act anyway they wanted.Weird/interesting restrictions or bonusses used to also define classes.   Druids and used to have to fight other druids, fighter used to get followers by default, wizards used to get familiars by default.Spells used to be the domain of spellcasters, now rituals can be accessed by any class.  (the powers arguably don't differentiate any class as they are all in the same format and frequency).The strength of an Archetype falls on a spectrum.  But if characters are balanced equally in combat, exploration and social settings. If many of the things that used to differentiate classes become options available to any class.   If combat is very balanced number wise, and the only difference in characters is there "combat role".   Then I would argue that you are moving towards weak archetypes or a classless system.Dont get me wrong theres nothing wrong with choice.  I like the possibility that in 5e, classes will be "pre customized" and there may be mods to re customize them yourself, I would be a fan of that.  I also would like many classes so your choice might be to choose another class that is closer to what your looking for.  What I am opposed to is flavourless classes, as I seen the effect that that has on my game.</blockquote>

Verification