Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4202515" data-attributes="member: 162">I disagree.It depends on how you define a class. Classes could be little more than templates, that define particular aspects of your character, and leave the rest to you; they could also be rather restrictive and do a lot for defining your character, as 4e seems to do.It's also a matter of how you interpret the idea of class. Is it a purely metagame concept? In that case, then classes could surely be rather versatile. But if you want people to be recognized as particular classes in-character, then you would need to tightly define them, so that they can be recognized (&quot;Look, Joe, that guy has a big sword. Guess he's one of them fighter-types.&quot;).As an example, take the 3.5 fighter. The fighter is little more than a template: the class gives you class skills, hit dice, BAB and save progressions, weapon and armor proficiencies, and additional feats. It's a do-it-yourself kind of class, and could have resulted in a wide variety of fighters - I think it's probably safe to say it didn't, but that was because of poor feat design and selection, not due to a flaw in the class. The fighter doesn't tell you what kind of fighter to be; it tells you that fighters are generally tougher and generally study these particular skills, but the class could be used to represent the heavy-hitting two-handed-sword-wielder and the quick agile duelist (perhaps not well, but it could).If you don't like the fighter, look at the 3.5 rogue. Sure, they all sneak attack and have a few other features in common, but you can do a lot with the class - you can take it in a lot of different directions. Lots of character types can be made using the rogue.So I don't think that saying that classes that don't cling to archetypes are bad classes is fair. &quot;Template classes&quot; seem to be a valid and viable approach to class design. Versatility is a good thing, IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GnomeWorks, post: 4202515, member: 162"] I disagree. It depends on how you define a class. Classes could be little more than templates, that define particular aspects of your character, and leave the rest to you; they could also be rather restrictive and do a lot for defining your character, as 4e seems to do. It's also a matter of how you interpret the idea of class. Is it a purely metagame concept? In that case, then classes could surely be rather versatile. But if you want people to be recognized as particular classes in-character, then you would need to tightly define them, so that they can be recognized ("Look, Joe, that guy has a big sword. Guess he's one of them fighter-types."). As an example, take the 3.5 fighter. The fighter is little more than a template: the class gives you class skills, hit dice, BAB and save progressions, weapon and armor proficiencies, and additional feats. It's a do-it-yourself kind of class, and could have resulted in a wide variety of fighters - I think it's probably safe to say it didn't, but that was because of poor feat design and selection, not due to a flaw in the class. The fighter doesn't tell you what kind of fighter to be; it tells you that fighters are generally tougher and generally study these particular skills, but the class could be used to represent the heavy-hitting two-handed-sword-wielder and the quick agile duelist (perhaps not well, but it could). If you don't like the fighter, look at the 3.5 rogue. Sure, they all sneak attack and have a few other features in common, but you can do a lot with the class - you can take it in a lot of different directions. Lots of character types can be made using the rogue. So I don't think that saying that classes that don't cling to archetypes are bad classes is fair. "Template classes" seem to be a valid and viable approach to class design. Versatility is a good thing, IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification