Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kill the bard!" data-source="post: 6164953" data-attributes="member: 6748886">Thanks for the replies, guy.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts regarding the subject.  The reason the question is important to me is I'm working on a set of homebrew rules for my friends and me, as we've yet to find that one system that fits us comfortably.  It also gives me a chance to flex my creative muscles, but sometimes those creative blocks weight too much for one person to lift by himself.  And so I'm turning to you guys, and you've given me plenty to think about thus far.I presented this question to my friend the other day.  He, like me, feels that a class-based system with three classes (fighter, rogue, and magic-user) is too few.  He also sees little purpose in having a rogue, an assassin, a ninja, a thief, a spy, etc. when they are all just variations of the same thing.We felt the fighter could be split into a heavy melee fighters and a ranged fighter.  The rogue is a usually a light melee fighter of some kind.  And magic-users can easily be split into an offensive magic user and a defensive/supportive magic user; with the option to split the offensive magic user into a pure offensive caster and a crowd control/enfeebling caster.  Throw in a jack of all trades class and we're sitting at seven classes.What personally comes to mind when I think of each class type is:' - Heavy Fighter - Warrior - Light Fighter - Rogue - Ranged Fighter - Ranger - Offensive Caster - Wizard - Defensive Caster - Cleric - Jack of all Trades - BardWith just those six classes I think the mechanics of each class provides a player the option to do just about anything he wants.  And the list is nice and clean, there's no needless bloat or excessive fluff.  But thematically, I still feel the list is missing a few things that can't quite be replicated by rolling a class from that list.  Options (through class abilities) can allow a warrior to be played as a rage-fueled barbarian, but the temptation to split these two classes is strong.  But getting a monk/martial artist from rogue abilities (or those of any other class) isn't as easy.  This is especially true if you want to incorporate Chi into the monk's abilities.  Furthermore, I like the idea of splitting wizards and necromancers.  Maybe it's my time spent playing video games that leads me feel these two classes can and should be designed to perform differently?  The necromancer is also the obvious choice for a pet class.  And there's still a paladin and druid waiting for seats at the table.Now I've got a list of classes that runs anywhere from six to eleven.  Splitting the rogue and the monk feels right, as does splitting the wizard and the necromancer.  That's eight.  Eight feels like it should be perfect, but the temptation to split the warrior and barbarian continues to gnaw at me.  I do like paladins, so perhaps combining them with the cleric would be the way to go.  In combat, clerics are essentially jr paladins.  In casting, paladins are essentially jr clerics.  No great sacrifice comes from combining the two classes.That leaves the druid.  I wouldn't mind replacing the bard as the jack of all trades class with the druid.  In AD&D 2e the druid could do just about everything the bard could do; the bard had thief skills and they used different spell lists, but other than that the druid could do pretty much anything the bard could do.So now my list looks like this: - Warrior - heavy melee fighter - Rogue - light melee fighter - Monk - light melee fighter - Ranger - ranged fighter - Wizard - offensive spell caster - Paladin - defensive spell caster - Necromancer - enfeebling spell caster and pets - Druid - jack of all tradesAll that remains is a way to distinguish the rogue from the monk in more than theme.  The rogue can be made to excel at or be given big bonuses while utilizing stealth, and the monk can be given Chi.  But they're both still light melee fighters.  I could take a page from many mmorpgs and make the rogue more of a burst fighter (a physical combatant who specializes in critical hits and high-damage attacks) and leave the monk as the quick, light fighter; but that might feel a little "gamey".  I'd prefer class distinctions to feel organic...natural.Anyway, I've rambled on long enough.  Again, all feedback you guys might offer in response to my original question or this rather long-winded post is most appreciated.  Thanks.</blockquote>

Verification