Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6173107" data-attributes="member: 1879">I agree with you as well. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Unearthed Arcana is however a good example of a place to look to see someone teetering on the edge of collapsing the classes into a few strong archetypes but not quite doing so because of either an impulse to stick in a favorite fictional archtype (I'm looking at you Oathsworn) or simply because it's D&D.There are several classes in UA which encompass distinctly different playstyles under a single class with multiple options. (Akashic, Champion of X, Totem Warrior, Witch.) And there are others which could easily have been folded together but were kept distinct not so much for mechanical reasons as for Mythic ones (Greenbond and Magister frex.)Here I'm going to disagree with you. Not that the number of Archtypes is small, that's true, and I agree that de Bergerac and Musashi should be the same class. However it is perfectly valid to split out classes for mechanical reasons as well as mythic ones. It depends on the system and what you're trying to achieve. I think the use of game mechanics to portray the world is an underrated aspect of game design. The game engine represents the physics of the game world in a very real way. My go to example for this one is Glorantha. If you're not familiar with this grandaddy of RPG worlds it's a Mythic reality where multiple contradictory things can be true and belief can change the world, although doing so is not safe, easy, or foolproof. There are three distinct sorts of magic in Glorantha. Spirit, Godly, and Mysticism. The original Runequest game from the 70's was a fiddly, complicated game typical of it's time with percentile based skills that only improved through in game use and some other oddities. Each magic system was portrayed with completely distinct mechanics. Spirit magic was quick and useful but not terribly powerful and you needed a Shaman handy to learn more. Shamans had fetches and were always active on the spirit plane, kind of like a mage in shadowrun with his astral perception jammed permantly on. Priest and devotees of the gods has to literally sacrifice stat points to aquire their spells, but divine spells were big, powerful, and do not fail. Mysticism was a complex skill system based form of magic where apprentices were useless but great mages could do almost anything. And Runequest was later pointed to as an example of why overly mechanistic game design was bad. After all this is a grand mythic world, and it's stories do not match well to the ration counting, encumberance figuring mechanics of the original system. The new version Heroquest is a narrativist system that dispenses with the bean counting and it a wonderful, evocotive system with a simple universal resolution mechanic. The effect of which is that all three magic systems are now completly identical in play with only some fluff guidelines to differentiate them. Et tu narritivism?So my 2¢ is that classes should be used for two reasons. 1st is to showcase mythic or archtypal differences for the players. If Druids worship of the Old Gods or Beast Spirits is distinct from the New Gods or High Ones that Priests serve then Druids and Priests should be distinct classes.2nd, I do think it's valid to have classes for mechanical reasons. Iron Heros for example has, what, 13 classes whose archetype all boil down to ass kicker? The game exists to revel in mechanicaly distinct was to kick ass and that's ok. Likewise late in 3es run there were several books which showcased classes developed because someone wanted to try out some nifty mechanic they thought of. And I personally love Binders, Totemists and Crusaders. However it is very easy to go overboard on number 2. There really is not any valid mythic or mechanical reason for both Wizards and Wu-Jen to exist in a game world, they both represent the same archtype, and there is no apparent reason for their spell lists to be so distinct and exclusive. It would have been better to note the cultural differences and have some new spells and note that physical isolation has led to divergent lists, but that the two groups could swap spells if they ever met. Likewise there is not really any reason to have an Unfettered, a Harrier, A Swashbuckler, a Dervish and a Scout all in the same world. A Light mobile fighter is at best one archtype and if you need several mechanically distinct ways to protray people who all have the same job, fighting style and training then you probably screwed up your mechanics somewhere. D&D worlds that try to fit in too many classes, like the insufficiently Forgotten Realms, end up a messy hodgepodges with no usefull nythic identity and endless indistiguishable swarms of badguys de jour. If I were to make my own 3e world these days (which I'm mulling over) I'd go through the massive list of existing 3.5 classes and decide which classes I wanted in my world and what they are doing there. Do you really need Paladins, Soulborn, Crusaders, Samurai and Knights all in the same world? Probably not.</blockquote>

Verification