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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5795537" data-attributes="member: 82160">You haven't been doing it wrong.  I love taking classes/archetypes and changing them to suit my needs.  Thats the beauty of archetypes as classes, you have a strong idea that shapes and gives spirit to an other wise lifeless mechanical class, and players can STILL change that default archetype if they wish.   Players who dont change the archetype, at least have the default archetype to help them roleplay/get into character.  I find this is MUCH better then having a class represent some tactical/mechanical methods on a battlefield and little else.  What ends up happening here is some people craft a character, the same type of people who would have changed a strong archetype.  But the players who don't think about that end up having bland, flavorless characters defined by powers because the rules don't nudge them in any direction.Thats my experience at least. For example as much as my players hated alignment, it gave them something to roleplay and judge their actions, they discussed it and it often effected their choices.  WHen it was removed, morals were NEVER an issue because there wasnt even a threat of any mechanical repercussions.  This had a negative impact on my campaign because we saw one less non combat/roleplaying thing my players would talk about.   Multiply this by all the choices to take fluff out of the game (less archetype driven classes, fluff left up to the players, divine powers not dependant on gods approval,  weaker non combat niches, no alignment effects, powers as mechanics with one sentence of flavor) and you end up with players who forget that this is a roleplaying game and not a tactical minis game.</blockquote>

Verification