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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LordArchaon" data-source="post: 5814378" data-attributes="member: 60929">My latest thoughts on the matter of classes and what can distinguish them for real are about identity and strategy.Combat roles are about tactics. Tactics are a "small thing", they shouldn't define a character class. It's identity (flavor) but more than anything strategy that defines a class IMO.Fighter: wants to be in the middle of the battle, moves little, hits meaningfully, its presence is "important", fights in the "right way" (upfront). Ranger: takes advantage of terrain, moves fast and much, wants to hunt down enemies that are out of reach, good at pursuit & escape, hit and run, works best in open environments. Rogue: fights dirty, sneaky, moves to always find the weakest spot, "blinks" here and there, works best in cramped environments.See? They are perfectly defined like this, and still they can fill many combat roles tactically speaking. I even see the three of them being able to take the leader role, with the leader Fighter being the Warlord. In fact, the Warlord as a "martial leader" class is too limited. I would add its identity to that of the Fighter, in order to make the Fighter more interesting. Then you could also have a "Chief Thief" Rogue that "teaches the rogue tricks to allies", and a "Wilderness Guide" Ranger that "teaches the ranger ways to allies".Other roles become more obvious when you think about the different weapons. Controller is mostly ranged/area, so better served by ranged weapons. Rogues could literally "spray" monsters with thrown darts and daggers or be snipers with their short bows or crossbows; Rangers could be typical "hunters" with longbows, moving a lot and making the prey follow them in an endless pursuit (this is also controlling at a larger scale); Fighters could be more the steady-type of archer, firing less arrows but stronger, more crippling; or he could go melee controller with hafted weapons. Striker and Defender are much more obvious. Can't see a Rogue or Ranger Defender? Well, they sure wouldn't be normal options, but later splatbooks could introduce them. A "Zorro type" could be a Rogue Defender, basically creating a messy situation that can't be ignored, while a Ranger Defender could be one that darts from enemy to enemy, being able to defend characters that are not near each other. Think Aragorn when he defends the hobbits from the nazgul.This kind of classification works best for Martial classes. For Arcane classes, I'd like to see more of a "magic type" and "methods to gain magic" classification, like this:Wizard: casts "constructed spells", learned by studying and memorizing. Mostly "fire and forget" (Vancian), a lot of known spells, must prepare and plan ahead to be effective. Versatile but not flexible. Good at strategy, not much at tactics. Sorcerer: creates spells from "raw magic", not learned but innate and connected to his/her body, probably acquired by bloodline or accident, mostly at-will magic, very little variability but can shape few elements in many forms. Flexible but not versatile. Good at tactics, not much at strategy. Warlock: channels "outsider magic", imbued into him by an external patron. Some at-will magic and some daily like summons and curses, limited by the patron. Tainted magic, its effects are best if kept at bay. Some flexibility, some strategy, but limited by patron. Opens up new tactics and strategies... (Got to think more about the Warlock)Not very polished, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make...</blockquote>

Verification