Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5572376" data-attributes="member: 92511">I agree. You can't &quot;mix them up.&quot; If you're devising a &quot;system&quot; you need one or the other.It sounds to me like you've already decided...To use your example, if you don't want someone modeling a &quot;paladin&quot; as a &quot;paladin&quot; because they take &quot;Paladin&quot; then it seems, you should be using the &quot;Descriptive&quot; as opposed to the &quot;Thematic&quot;...unless I am misunderstanding your concept of each...in which case, reverse it.The &quot;Holy Avenger&quot; or &quot;Witch Hunter&quot; can be modeled as a paladinic order...or not. This seems to be a much broader, and somewhat appealing for me, take on PC class.I say, go with the descriptives...of course, that then creates a significantly longer list of options for players...Which is NOT to say it is a bad thing. Just that, then the system should be aimed at much more experienced players that will want/are willing to read through the options.I might suggest....doing both? Break your Thematics: Warriors, for example (and Mages, Clerics, etc...etc...) into Descriptive &quot;talent trees&quot; as you say.Off the top of my head...something like this:Warriors-Scouts-Strategists-Weapon Specialists (swordsmen, spearmen, archers, dual wielders, etc.)-Witch Hunters-Savage BattlersI dunno, something like that. Give an equal number of &quot;talent trees&quot; to each Thematic so players don't feel they are short-changed picking one &quot;type&quot; over another.Just initial thoughts.Good luck and happy system-making.--Steel Dragons</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 5572376, member: 92511"] I agree. You can't "mix them up." If you're devising a "system" you need one or the other. It sounds to me like you've already decided...To use your example, if you don't want someone modeling a "paladin" as a "paladin" because they take "Paladin" then it seems, you should be using the "Descriptive" as opposed to the "Thematic"...unless I am misunderstanding your concept of each...in which case, reverse it. The "Holy Avenger" or "Witch Hunter" can be modeled as a paladinic order...or not. This seems to be a much broader, and somewhat appealing for me, take on PC class. I say, go with the descriptives...of course, that then creates a significantly longer list of options for players...Which is NOT to say it is a bad thing. Just that, then the system should be aimed at much more experienced players that will want/are willing to read through the options. I might suggest....doing both? Break your Thematics: Warriors, for example (and Mages, Clerics, etc...etc...) into Descriptive "talent trees" as you say. Off the top of my head...something like this: Warriors -Scouts -Strategists -Weapon Specialists (swordsmen, spearmen, archers, dual wielders, etc.) -Witch Hunters -Savage Battlers I dunno, something like that. Give an equal number of "talent trees" to each Thematic so players don't feel they are short-changed picking one "type" over another. Just initial thoughts. Good luck and happy system-making. --Steel Dragons [/QUOTE]

Verification