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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5381505" data-attributes="member: 92511">Well definitely don't want to be creating any flame wars. I've given this some thought and I've come to the conclusion, that in my view, there's room for both of the first two: an archetype AND specific/special groups.I am soooo not interested in defining/developing mechanics other than as necessary for the special classes. So, no worries about going THAT route.Is there some reason a setting can't have both? Some reason you can't say, here's the general breakdown (fighter, cleric, mage, rogue) and here are the sub-/special-classes (paladins, druids, sorarynae, psions, etc.).If you want to play a swashbuckler-be a fighter or a rogue, take the mechanics (skills, feats, proficiencies, what have you) make him a swashbuckler. If you want to be a "Dread Necromancer" be a necromancer specialist and take the feats, skills, etc. to get you to that level. Personally, I see no reason to have an entire separate "build" just to make a necromancer more necromancer-y. That's taking all of the RP out of RPG and making it all about the mechanics. OR, go ahead! Allow DN in your game if you like it. I'm not interested in what versions of what games people like to play. I'm just interested in offering players, who maybe are looking for a change in setting or even people who've never played, possibilities for character classes and races that they can play and feel themselves immediately a part of that setting. Wide enough possibilities that most anyone would find something they'd want to try without separate a class for every permutation of feat combos or special abilities.Orea's definitely a worlds that needs a lot of magic-users....and...I'm sorry I don't think I'm following. How can an archetype/only 6 or 7 be "thematically strong"? How can I make them thematically strong if they are supposed to be generalities? Well, here I would put: "Warriors", Mages, Clerics, Barbarians (in their Orean definition/incarnation), Rangers, Druids (in their Orean definition/incarnation), Rogues...Rogues are easily the ones with the most possible shoot-offs...of which, possibly the Assassin could be an archetype of its own.I really don't understand. An archetype is fairly generic...it is kind of the definition. A pinnacle...a "standard perfect example" of...but a generic. If I called them "Warriors" instead of "Fighters" (huh, shades of 2e. haha) would that make it more palatable?I could certainly do that...but it goes to the original post, where's that line? When does the breaking down by skills and feats stop? 20 classes? 50? One could make each person/player a completely INDEPENDENT class just for them...one-to-one classes...individual skills and feats. That's actually an interesting idea for a small, knowledgeable group...but impossible for packaged product. Yes, agreed. This can certainly be built in...I suppose I'm leaning more towards the second (specifics) than the first (archetypes)...but as I've said, I'm really concerned about breaking down too far/too many options/too many classes splintering from each other.Sooo....I guess where I'm going with all of this is CAN I have classes that are both archetypal and specific groups...or is there some unspoken rule somewhere that says I can't or shouldn't?Thanks for all of the feedback.--Steel Dragons</blockquote>

Verification