Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vigilance" data-source="post: 3741788" data-attributes="member: 4275">I really have no clue where you got the idea that the Tank wasn't going to be skilled. I basically took a page from Grim Tales, which took the 6 base classes (each based on ability score) and extended them to 20 levels.That seemed real popular with folks (one of those folks being me), and as I thought about it more, I realized how many characters you could model with classes based on the 6 attributes, turned into archetypes based on party roles. But I never meant to imply that the tank was dumb.I basically have three variations on the combat specialist, and three variations on the skill specialist.There might not NEED to be 6 classes, but that was the route that felt most natural to me for a variety of reasons.Also, I think you're missing how modifiable these 6 archetypes are.You get to pick a background, an occupation, a hobby, a class, feats and character disadvantages.You can also change your class after 1st level through multi-classing, and change your occupation. So the classes are far from being a straight-jacket.They're just there to do what classes SHOULD do (in my opinion): that is, provide party roles, niches that help smooth the process of creating a balanced party.One of those niches, both in games and fiction, as you yourself pointed out, is &quot;dude who can really suck up damage&quot;. I feel that's a perfectly legitimate niche for building a class around. I agree there's plenty of other archetypes I could have used, including a &quot;generalist&quot; archetype.However, my personal experience is that players prefer a strongly defined niche from a class over something general. I count this as the reason no one can write a Bard class that folks are happy with.So I went with &quot;fighter who is good at pressing the attack&quot;, &quot;fighter who is good at avoiding damage&quot;, &quot;fighter who sucks up damage&quot;, &quot;tech-based skill guy&quot;, &quot;skill guy with great saves&quot; and &quot;skill guy who knows how to get folks to see his way/leader guy&quot;.These types of options are so popular in games, we see them in games that don't even HAVE classes.For example, Fallout assumes players will tend to fall into &quot;melee combat boy&quot;, &quot;ranged combat boy&quot;, &quot;stealth boy&quot; and &quot;charisma boy&quot;. Now sure, that's 4 archetypes not 6, but variety is the spice of life.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vigilance, post: 3741788, member: 4275"] I really have no clue where you got the idea that the Tank wasn't going to be skilled. I basically took a page from Grim Tales, which took the 6 base classes (each based on ability score) and extended them to 20 levels. That seemed real popular with folks (one of those folks being me), and as I thought about it more, I realized how many characters you could model with classes based on the 6 attributes, turned into archetypes based on party roles. But I never meant to imply that the tank was dumb. I basically have three variations on the combat specialist, and three variations on the skill specialist. There might not NEED to be 6 classes, but that was the route that felt most natural to me for a variety of reasons. Also, I think you're missing how modifiable these 6 archetypes are. You get to pick a background, an occupation, a hobby, a class, feats and character disadvantages. You can also change your class after 1st level through multi-classing, and change your occupation. So the classes are far from being a straight-jacket. They're just there to do what classes SHOULD do (in my opinion): that is, provide party roles, niches that help smooth the process of creating a balanced party. One of those niches, both in games and fiction, as you yourself pointed out, is "dude who can really suck up damage". I feel that's a perfectly legitimate niche for building a class around. I agree there's plenty of other archetypes I could have used, including a "generalist" archetype. However, my personal experience is that players prefer a strongly defined niche from a class over something general. I count this as the reason no one can write a Bard class that folks are happy with. So I went with "fighter who is good at pressing the attack", "fighter who is good at avoiding damage", "fighter who sucks up damage", "tech-based skill guy", "skill guy with great saves" and "skill guy who knows how to get folks to see his way/leader guy". These types of options are so popular in games, we see them in games that don't even HAVE classes. For example, Fallout assumes players will tend to fall into "melee combat boy", "ranged combat boy", "stealth boy" and "charisma boy". Now sure, that's 4 archetypes not 6, but variety is the spice of life. [/QUOTE]

Verification