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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 9618811" data-attributes="member: 5142">Thanks for understanding. However, IME, I sometimes find it easier to break from 5e not by presenting the same classes, but by showing potential players the archetypes or concepts that aren't adequately expressed in 5e as I genuinely don't think that 5e somehow has encapsulated the totality or even most fantasy archetypes within its chosen twelve classes. Spark joy by showing something unique, new, and different! Sometimes it can even be easier if you don't show players, particularly new players, the 5e classes because I don't necessarily think that the 5e classes are terribly intuitive for newcomers.For example, what is the difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard? In common parlance? Nothing. It's a distinction without a difference. However, in 5e that difference amounts to raw channeling versus academic study. But in other RPGs, including in computer games, there may only be a singular Mage, though there may also be some variant of the "Summoner" Mage: e.g., Necromancer (Diablo/Guild Wars), Warlock (WoW), Arcanist/Summoner (FF14), etc.I think that there are more interesting and familiar class archetypes that are more easily accessible to players by virtue of computer games - which are MUCH LARGER than TTRPGs! - if more TTRPGs would be willing to break the mold of WotC D&D's classes, which partially exist due to mix of tradition (e.g., Fighter, Wizard, Cleric), mechanical experimentation (e.g., Sorcerer and Warlock), as well as the idea of backwards compatibility/continuity (e.g., convert your 3e/4e/PF Sorcerer to a 5e Sorcerer).</blockquote>

Verification