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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Razjah" data-source="post: 7650259" data-attributes="member: 98806">I think I'm in between "Class as an Archetype" and "Class as an Ability Set" leaning towards archetype. In many literary cases, the difference between classes is basically in explanation. For example, the Thor vs the Hulk fight on the Helicarrier The Avengers. Hulk is a "barbaric" fighter basically just brawling and using extreme strength (we're ignoring his angrier=stronger power here). Thor is a trained fighter using his discipline to hold off Hulk. When the guy in the plane got too close and shot at Hulk- he become the subject of the Hulk's rather ire. In literature, you can describe Thor's training and planning in the fight descriptions and compare it to Hulk just attacking and crushing things. But during gameplay, having the players describe this falls flat rather quickly. The archetypes allow for some mechanical differences while still keeping a core group of classes, I think this helps the GMs in prep for encounters and other situation. You don't have the skill issue of which skills does the fighter have and which ones does the barbarian have. The archetypes also allow for some customization in the game world on the GM's side. If the GM doesn't want armor wearing priests, an archetype that uses the wizard and gets cleric spells works rather well. You can get the bard style inspiration abilities from 3e style games and give them to a fighter, swapping out some abilities, to get a warlord feel. The one thing I don't like about archetypes is that you need to be careful about how many can be allowed or you end up with a basically classless system. This can be great, but not when the game is based on classes.</blockquote>

Verification