Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 8249320" data-attributes="member: 1465">I am quite ok with the idea of CLASS being something tangibile in the world narrative. It does fit with my general preference of having FEW people (think like few % or even decimals) in the fantasy world with class levels and the vast majority being non-classed. I am not the kind of DM who describes e.g. a temple as having 10 Clerics but rather 1-2 Clerics + 8-9 non-classed priests.One positive thing that can come out of this approach is that if you want to be fair to all classes, you have to treat them all this way and this means you are encouraged to find a way to emphasize the uniqueness of being a Fighter instead of a generic warrior, or a Rogue instead of a generic thief. &quot;This won't be an easy battle for our army, they have a FIGHTER on the front line!&quot; So if the whole idea helps against treating the Fighter as just a bunch of combat abilities which anyone else can also take, I am all for it. Another hidden benefit is that, if enforced properly, it can discourage multiclassing. On one hand belonging to multiple classes might be seen as being even more special, on the other it might be seen as a &quot;glass half empty&quot; or even a fraud. I am a fan of the Rokugan setting where the main classes (Samurai, Shugenja, Monk, Courtier) are meant as a way of life and assume lifelong training at a school or monastery. There are exceptions (even too many for my tastes) but they follow some rules (like some Samurai joining a monastery to earn Monk levels later in life when deemed too old to &quot;work&quot; as Samurai).Clearly, all this approach doesn't work for people who intend characters as mere sets of abilities to combine into &quot;builds&quot;. That approach typically favors multiclassing, swapping abilities between classes or make them available to everyone through feats or similar, and even lean towards classless RPGs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 8249320, member: 1465"] I am quite ok with the idea of CLASS being something tangibile in the world narrative. It does fit with my general preference of having FEW people (think like few % or even decimals) in the fantasy world with class levels and the vast majority being non-classed. I am not the kind of DM who describes e.g. a temple as having 10 Clerics but rather 1-2 Clerics + 8-9 non-classed priests. One positive thing that can come out of this approach is that if you want to be fair to all classes, you have to treat them all this way and this means you are encouraged to find a way to emphasize the uniqueness of being a Fighter instead of a generic warrior, or a Rogue instead of a generic thief. "This won't be an easy battle for our army, they have a FIGHTER on the front line!" So if the whole idea helps against treating the Fighter as just a bunch of combat abilities which anyone else can also take, I am all for it. Another hidden benefit is that, if enforced properly, it can discourage multiclassing. On one hand belonging to multiple classes might be seen as being even more special, on the other it might be seen as a "glass half empty" or even a fraud. I am a fan of the Rokugan setting where the main classes (Samurai, Shugenja, Monk, Courtier) are meant as a way of life and assume lifelong training at a school or monastery. There are exceptions (even too many for my tastes) but they follow some rules (like some Samurai joining a monastery to earn Monk levels later in life when deemed too old to "work" as Samurai). Clearly, all this approach doesn't work for people who intend characters as mere sets of abilities to combine into "builds". That approach typically favors multiclassing, swapping abilities between classes or make them available to everyone through feats or similar, and even lean towards classless RPGs. [/QUOTE]

Verification