Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6197154" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I think I mostly agree with your analysis, but I don't think that there's a single good answer to this question. I think it would help a lot for the designer's to pick a &quot;mode&quot; of thought in this area (or would have helped). The way I see it, having an &quot;archetype&quot; style would work well with a small number of broad classes (maybe 3 or 4) along with sensible multiclassing that allowed both &quot;splashing&quot; or getting a dusting of another class. Toss in some awesome background rules for spice and flavor and you're done. On the other hand, if class is supposed to represent a specific profession within the world...then I think you need a whole awful lot of them that are specifically tuned to the game world, and the whys and wherefores of multiclassing get a lot more complicated (IMO). (And you probably want to have clear rules for DMs to generate their own classes.)I think since they didn't take a strong stance on this in the beginning of the design process (instead focusing getting the &quot;feel&quot; or &quot;core experience&quot; of D&amp;D correct as a determinant of class existence), we are left with the haphazard pile of things that we have now. Mechanically, I don't think it matters all that much, but there's a sort of ongoing mental or psychological toll (not to mention the verbal confusions) to a game where you could have:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">an uncivilized warrior who is a Ranger</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">a man who escaped the gladiatorial arenas who is a Barbarian</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">a professional aristocratic soldier who is a Fighter(Gladiator)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">a member of a mounted law-enforcement organization called the Rangers who is a Fighter(Knight)</li>
</ul>...all at the same table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6197154, member: 6688937"] I think I mostly agree with your analysis, but I don't think that there's a single good answer to this question. I think it would help a lot for the designer's to pick a "mode" of thought in this area (or would have helped). The way I see it, having an "archetype" style would work well with a small number of broad classes (maybe 3 or 4) along with sensible multiclassing that allowed both "splashing" or getting a dusting of another class. Toss in some awesome background rules for spice and flavor and you're done. On the other hand, if class is supposed to represent a specific profession within the world...then I think you need a whole awful lot of them that are specifically tuned to the game world, and the whys and wherefores of multiclassing get a lot more complicated (IMO). (And you probably want to have clear rules for DMs to generate their own classes.) I think since they [I]didn't[/I] take a strong stance on this in the beginning of the design process (instead focusing getting the "feel" or "core experience" of D&D correct as a determinant of class existence), we are left with the haphazard pile of things that we have now. Mechanically, I don't think it matters all that much, but there's a sort of ongoing mental or psychological toll (not to mention the verbal confusions) to a game where you could have: [LIST] [*]an uncivilized warrior who is a Ranger [*]a man who escaped the gladiatorial arenas who is a Barbarian [*]a professional aristocratic soldier who is a Fighter(Gladiator) [*]a member of a mounted law-enforcement organization called the Rangers who is a Fighter(Knight) [/LIST] ...all at the same table. [/QUOTE]

Verification