Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4786321" data-attributes="member: 80487">Thanks! That Wikipedia page is very helpful, not least in following the discussions here!By temperament and experience, I am inclined to something like the approach of SiderisAnon -- although I would probably keep all 11 of the PHB classes.(A) Most of the additions seem bound up with particular world-system assumptions, and I prefer to shape the setting myself. I'm not seeing many real archetypes that resonate like most of the core classes.(B) I might depict some types along these lines with variations on the basic classes (as, for instance, paladins and rangers derive from fighters). Others, though, might come in via prestige classes, feats, skills, or magical attainments (like magic items but not "items" per se).I find the latter course generally more interesting. I prefer the "adventure" game to the "build" game.By analogy, I don't think Conan, Kull, and Bran Mac Morn each needs a class of his own, much less another each for Thongor, Brak, etc.. For that matter, I don't really think the "barbarian" class is necessarily a better fit for all those fellows than the fighter -- although it may fit a recognized stereotype nonetheless.In AD&D's World of Greyhawk setting, the Scarlet Brotherhood was an organization, not a new character class. I don't think it thereby suffered any lack of flavor.I not only don't mind coming up with additions on my own but consider it part of the fun of D&D! I would be glad to work with a player who has a concept I think will enrich the campaign, just as I have since I started with the little brown books. However, if I wanted a wholesale "kitchen sink" melange then I would probably choose something like Encounter Critical instead of 3E. (Or Hero System or Mutants & Masterminds, for 3E-ish "crunch" with a really systematic treatment of "builds".)Still, there are likely to be some general types that have become widely taken as normative among dedicated 3E players even if they are not so recognizable outside that context.The 3E "tool kit" seems to me capable of handling an awful lot of individual customization. In particular, I am not keen on defining classes by minutia of combat tactics.A lot of the added "classes" seem to me taxonomically more properly species, or even sub-sub-species. Are there popular common features that we can organize into new higher-order categories?Pigeon holes are fine for pigeons, but I think adventurers deserve categories with more elbow room -- so that it's less the type than the particular character standing out and above the masses.</blockquote>

Verification