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: 6279643" data-attributes="member: 92511">I get what you're saying...but is this really as "either/or" as that? Does it have to be one way or the other? Why can't a class based system have both? D&D, for most of its incarnations, has both. PF has both. I guess I just see the room, for table to table/individual to individual choices, that a player might want a specialized type [cavalier]...or a general type to be general [I want a fighter who can be good at all types of fighting] OR taking a  general/broad class and making a specialized type that the system doesn't offer separately [I'm going to focus all of my skills/feat/maneuver/proficiency options be a the greatest swordsman the realms have ever seen!].   Right. But why can't a class-based system say: if you want to be Robin Hood, you could be a Fighter who specializes in Bows/Archery or a Ranger who does the same?...or, for that matter (to tie it back around), someone who wants to follow the Robin of Lockley (or wherever he was suposedly from) and make a Cavalier, with a Knight/Noble background/theme/whatever the system offers in this vein, who specializes in archery from horseback?If you want to base it on a Fighter, you get WXYZ. That's what Fighters get. You'll get options for S-V as you gain experience/levels.If you base it on a ranger, you get, maybe, XY and UV built-in already. The W and Z? S and T? Well, you'll have to figure out a way to get those separately if you want them...or base your character on a Fighter instead.Lancelot: Fighter and use class options to specialize/take ABCD. Take a Cavalier, which already includes AB and comes with EF built-in. Or, in a high magiky setting/campaign (or just a desire on the player's part for a magiky Lancelot-style character), use a Paladin with the A and C built-in, maybe KL come with the paladin, and then take G and J options to round out the remaining knightly/cavaliery stuff.Multiple avenues to similar, but not exactly the same, type of character.I really don't have a problem with that and would love to have a party/table with 3 knightly (or any other example type) characters with one being a Fighter, one a Cavalier, and one a Ranger. Maybe the one rides, but kicks ass hand-to-hand. One kicks ass while riding, but is still capable hand-to-hand. One is notably (by design and desire) the weakest hand-to-hand, but kicks ass from range, whether riding or not! They're all in haveay armor. All carrying shields. All thundering across the field on their warhorses. All can use a lance/spear (but the Cav. is notably better with it). All displaying the banners of their houses/orders/individual crest. Anyone will look at them and say "Ah! Three Knights." But, regardless of the trappings, they are all very different characters, conceptually and, in at least some ways, mechanically.Assuming your initial "either/or" premise. Yes, that's true.I dunno. I see both takes, but I guess I fall more on the side of it  being possible (for a system) to do broad and specific classes and  leave it to the players/DMs/tables to define which way is the best [for  them] to go.I think the/a system can do/offer both...then it's the players who decide (or DMs to define for their particular game) if they can/want to accept or allow the multiple avenues or choose one [broad] or the other [specific] way to go, just from their own personal preferences, what fits their character concept best, and/or bias toward class structure.Not to get too tangential here. haha. And I will be getting to the other responses.</blockquote>

Verification