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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7184774" data-attributes="member: 4937">I would consider it so narrow as to either be: a) Something that you should implement and the level of a feat or archetype or background rather than a class.b) Something that is highly setting specific to a setting and only because the archetype is so important to the culture of that setting should it be implemented as a class.Interestingly, I consider 'Bard' to be a case of 'b'.  Bard is not a widely reoccurring fantasy archetype.  It's a highly specialized niche that has become accepted as normal with D&D.   However, Bard is vastly more reoccurring than a hero that poisons himself for the greater good, for which I'm having a hard time thinking of a compelling example.   I can think of many heroes that sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but that's a plot element and not something to build a class around.   Any class could choose to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.Agreed.  When defining what should be a class, you should be very careful indeed to not confuse personality with the class.  My defining characteristic of a good class is that you could fill an entire party with six PC's of that class, and yet still potentially have each be highly distinctive in personality and capabilities.   If your class is so narrow that it can't pass that test, it's probably too narrow to consider being a class.This would be a case in point.  I would not consider "Knight in Shining Armor" to be a class.  Although it would not be impossible to have six highly diverse "Knights in Shining Armor", I would not expect six players to show up with six Knights In Shining Armor and to get six very different characters as a result.   The archetype is too narrow to be a class, and conveniently, in 5e terms it is an literally an archetype (or should be an archetype) and not a class.</blockquote>

Verification