Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mokona" data-source="post: 3636334" data-attributes="member: 24891">Class TheoriesThere is a balance between &quot;very flexible and generic&quot; and &quot;flavorful and easy to grok&quot;.&nbsp; Dungeons &amp; Dragons v.3.5 now has a large number of base classes (in which you can begin your 1st level adventuring career).&nbsp; Cramming all those classes or at least those concepts into Neo-Fighter, Neo-Expert, and Neo-Adept is possible but each class would have a dizzying array of options.Somewhat fewer options for each class is better because it's more grokkable.Noble and Scoundrel could be the same class if it were called Expert but it's not obvious that a Noble and a Thief would be built from the same class.&nbsp; Once a concept (like the Expert class) becomes too diluted it loses cohesion.&nbsp; The Class for Skills is mechanical and not flavorful while at the same time focusing more on the skill point system we're leaving behind.What do I suggest?In an ideal world there would be system very similar to Saga where any class can have magic.&nbsp; Level 1 Paladins would be Fighter 1 + divine talents.&nbsp; Because it's iconic (and because it will always be, or has become over time, easier to grok) we should keep the Cleric and Mage classes.&nbsp; I'd even add a Psionicist class (for the fanatics out there <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />).So in an ideal world I'd see the classes as Uber-Fighter, Uber-Rogue, Uber-Scout, Uber-Noble, Uber-Mage, Uber-Cleric, and Uber-Psionicist.Arcane magic, divine spells, and psionics would be available to all classes (just like a Force Adept can come from the Warrior, Scout, Scoundrel, or Noble class).&nbsp; Weaker powers at each level would be available to other classes while the specialist class would get the high level powers (using standard D&amp;D spell rules).However my wife, who is very wise, suggests that it may be easier to keep the 11 core classes from the Player's Handbook than argue about and hash out the perfect Saga-like fantasy classes.&nbsp; There would still be a lot of room for 3-4 talent trees each even with Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard as the class list.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mokona, post: 3636334, member: 24891"] [b]Class Theories[/b] There is a balance between "very flexible and generic" and "flavorful and easy to grok". [B]Dungeons & Dragons[/B] v.3.5 now has a large number of base classes (in which you can begin your 1st level adventuring career). Cramming all those classes or at least those concepts into Neo-Fighter, Neo-Expert, and Neo-Adept is possible but each class would have a dizzying array of options. Somewhat fewer options for each class is better because it's more grokkable. Noble and Scoundrel could be the same class if it were called Expert but it's not obvious that a Noble and a Thief would be built from the same class. Once a concept (like the Expert class) becomes too diluted it loses cohesion. The Class for Skills is mechanical and not flavorful while at the same time focusing more on the skill point system we're leaving behind. What do I suggest? In an ideal world there would be system very similar to [I]Saga[/I] where any class can have magic. Level 1 Paladins would be Fighter 1 + divine talents. Because it's iconic (and because it will always be, or has become over time, easier to grok) we should keep the Cleric and Mage classes. I'd even add a Psionicist class (for the fanatics out there :D). So in an ideal world I'd see the classes as Uber-Fighter, Uber-Rogue, Uber-Scout, Uber-Noble, Uber-Mage, Uber-Cleric, and Uber-Psionicist. Arcane magic, divine spells, and psionics would be available to all classes (just like a Force Adept can come from the Warrior, Scout, Scoundrel, or Noble class). Weaker powers at each level would be available to other classes while the specialist class would get the high level powers (using standard [B]D&D[/B] spell rules). However my wife, who is very wise, suggests that it may be easier to keep the 11 core classes from the [I]Player's Handbook[/I] than argue about and hash out the perfect [I]Saga[/I]-like fantasy classes. There would still be a lot of room for 3-4 talent trees each even with Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard as the class list. [/QUOTE]

Verification