Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 1954668" data-attributes="member: 3586">The related issue that GlassJaw discusses is that of class customisability.In theory, one could have only ONE class, and just plug in elements to customise the class as you see fit. We have this already in the Fighter class, although limited in scope, and likewise in the Sorcerer and Wizard classes (spell selection being the customisable elements).However, one drawback is that you lose the archetypal nature of classes.I believe this is a severe drawback. One of the great strengths of D&amp;D is that you can point to someone and say, &quot;You're playing a Cleric&quot; and have a pretty good idea of what their capabilities will be.An even more important is what the player sees: he or she can understand the basics of the class (or prestige class) very quickly indeed, and use it to immerse himself or herself in the game.If someone looks at the Shadowdancer prestige class and says, &quot;I want to be that!&quot;, it immediately gives them a well-defined goal to strive towards, and a role to assume. Especially with new players, this benefit of D&amp;D cannot be underestimated.Conversely, you have what could be termed the GURPS approach, which requires you to begin with a strong conception of a character and then to build it from the pieces provided.D&amp;D 3e provides for the GURPS approach to some extent with its multiclassing rules (d20 Modern probably provides for it more so, and UA gives a further D&amp;D version of that).Neither approach is wrong, but one of the chief reasons I play D&amp;D instead of GURPS is because it primarily uses the archetypal class system, rather than a menu system.Cheers!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MerricB, post: 1954668, member: 3586"] The related issue that GlassJaw discusses is that of class customisability. In theory, one could have only ONE class, and just plug in elements to customise the class as you see fit. We have this already in the Fighter class, although limited in scope, and likewise in the Sorcerer and Wizard classes (spell selection being the customisable elements). However, one drawback is that you lose the archetypal nature of classes. I believe this is a severe drawback. One of the great strengths of D&D is that you can point to someone and say, "You're playing a Cleric" and have a pretty good idea of what their capabilities will be. An even more important is what the player sees: he or she can understand the basics of the class (or prestige class) very quickly indeed, and use it to immerse himself or herself in the game. If someone looks at the Shadowdancer prestige class and says, "I want to be that!", it immediately gives them a well-defined goal to strive towards, and a role to assume. Especially with new players, this benefit of D&D cannot be underestimated. Conversely, you have what could be termed the GURPS approach, which requires you to begin with a strong conception of a character and then to build it from the pieces provided. D&D 3e provides for the GURPS approach to some extent with its multiclassing rules (d20 Modern probably provides for it more so, and UA gives a further D&D version of that). Neither approach is wrong, but one of the chief reasons I play D&D instead of GURPS is because it primarily uses the archetypal class system, rather than a menu system. Cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification