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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6200045" data-attributes="member: 78752">Well, putting aside for a moment that we /are/ talking about D&D here, which after 40 years has its own archetypes and no longer needs be beholden to what came before, that is a perfectly valid point.  In a differently constructed mythos, wizard could absolutely be a subclass of a "loreseeker" archetype, which is how I gather you characterize warlocks, bards, and druids. Is this not what I did with the cleric class and the paladin feat track?  You'll note that I've characterized the cleric archetype as the "healer" -- I don't think the archetypal D&D cleric is /necessarily/ a warrior (although, to be fair, I probably should, given my own rules).Well, first of all my objective is not to categorize but rather to de-categorize -- to eliminate classes that might as well be duplicates and reduce "class groups" to single classes.  Here's why I discarded your approach as an option in my experiment: what is ultimately important about a class in a class-based game is that it plays fundamentally differently than every other class.  Your divisions are no less valid than my classifications, but they do seem to suggest that, for example, the bard and druid should play similarly, if they are both "tradition keepers."  In my estimation, the bard is traditionally defined by music, and the druid by animal shapeshifting -- it is difficult for me to draw a parallel between them without introducing substantial complexity to their relationship.</blockquote>

Verification