Class as playstyle?

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=57939]SKyOdin[/MENTION] I'm going to run with your example of the brute fighter & the eloquent fighter. Yeah I agree that versatility is important, maybe my OP is off base but treat it as a thought experiment (like pretty much anything in this 5e forum).

My premise is that the players of the brute fighter & the eloquent fighter have more in common (speaking of play style here) than the players of the bard & the eloquent fighter. I think the appeal of the noble principled eloquent fighter is the knight-in-shining-armor archetype. Defending the village, protecting innocents, and rescuing the maiden. And accomplishing it with a sword. Thats the key point: the HOW for the brute fighter and the eloquent fighter is the same (combat) even if their motives are vastly different.

The bard OTOH might have a mechanic called "Accolades" where the more entertaining the player is to the group the more likely the bard's chance of success. Yeah it's horribly ill-defined and is indie as heck, but roll with it. The player of the eloquent fighter wouldn't want to run a bard for his knight-in-shining-armor.

I'm not speaking in absolutes, none o us are any "type" of player. I'm saying once you choose a class you're making a choice about what kind of playstyle you want in that game.

Or do you disagree?

 

[mkill]

Obviously, if a class is good at something, it will be picked by players who like to do that specific something. But it's not that clear-cut. Classes don't have exactly one audience, and most players try out a lot of very different classes over their gaming life.

Some play their Rogues as outgoing con-men and swashbucklers, some as sneaky assassins who hardly talk, and others as jaded dungeoneers and trap experts. Don't take away that flexibility because you want to target one imagined player type with what you think they like.

 

[Dragonblade]

There is a certain amount of playstyle already embedded into certain classes, but I hope there is some optional complexity as well. I cringe whenever I hear the notion that fighters should be the noob class, and wizards should be for advanced players. A complex fighter, and a simple wizard should be options.

I'll cede that noob-friendly basic attack spamming fighter, if I can have my ToB style warblade.

 

[Quickleaf]

Obviously, if a class is good at something, it will be picked by players who like to do that specific something. But it's not that clear-cut. Classes don't have exactly one audience, and most players try out a lot of very different classes over their gaming life.

Some play their Rogues as outgoing con-men and swashbucklers, some as sneaky assassins who hardly talk, and others as jaded dungeoneers and trap experts. Don't take away that flexibility because you want to target one imagined player type with what you think they like.

So maybe not such a good idea then?

I guess I was just thinking of the diversity of gamers I've met over the years and how to accommodate different playstyles. Class seemed like an easy way, but if not that then I wonder how these "modules" will manage to do it?

 

[grimslade]

I think the idea has merit. I don't think it should be all encompassing, but there should be a strong set of play styles evident when designing characters. I think this translates over better to themes than classes. The sneaky rogue, invisibility loving wizard, cleric of the god of shadows, and swashbuckling fighter seem to be heading toward a different play style than the Great-axe paladin, vengeful eco-warrior druid, flame sorcerer (FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!) and Beserker skald. The different components of class, theme, advanced (prestige) class, feat, skill and spell choice should all have play styles in mind. There should be selections that map for most play styles.

 

[Tom Servo]

There is definitely something to this. No doubt you can play almost any style with any class, but certain classes make it easier to play in certain ways. It's not a matter of a class being restricting, it will just harmonize better with certain play-styles.

 

[KesselZero]

I cringe whenever I hear the notion that fighters should be the noob class, and wizards should be for advanced players. A complex fighter, and a simple wizard should be options.

Strongly agreed, and I'm pretty confident this is something the designers are working towards with 5e. I think they specifically addressed this in one of the DDXP seminars; can't recall for sure, though. But it's something I'm looking forward to in 5e.

 

[MoonSong]

I agree that some classes lend themselves to certain playstyles, but that shouldn't mean classes should be designed with only that playstyle in mind, classes should provide being flexible enough, maybe made to support better some styles, but never to the point they become straightjackets.

 

[Quickleaf]

I agree that some classes lend themselves to certain playstyles, but that shouldn't mean classes should be designed with only that playstyle in mind, classes should provide being flexible enough, maybe made to support better some styles, but never to the point they become straightjackets.

No one is arguing that, and certainly not me.