Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6300645" data-attributes="member: 1465">My thoughts in a nutshell:- archetypes are an excellent gaming aid, both as a starting point for character creation and for fantasy world building- a player can use archetypes for example:(a) because she's a beginner and wants to start with an iconic character(b) as a starting point for more complex character design (either at the beginning of the game, or later on)(c) as a refreshing start after playing another type of character(d) to test out the features and feel of a new edition- a DM can leverage on archetypes for world building, for example by making them corresponding to precise roles in society or even factions, creating organizations etc.- D&D has traditionally used classes to represent archetypes, but other elements of the game served a similar purpose (e.g. alignment), and 5e is introducing even more options for framing archetypes, most notably backgrounds and subclasses but in a sense also some of the new large feats can do so- niche protection is just a design paradigm to ensure that archetypes are strong enough on its own, and as such it's a good thing- the downside of archetypes is that if they are enforced hard by the rules, advanced players will feel restricted in either their narrative or tactical character design choices- a smart RPG game finds a nice compromise in providing archetypes as first-degree choice (i.e. presented up-front as the fastest, easiest, more natural or "default" choice), and tools to go beyond the limits as second-degree choice (i.e. presented as optional rules or at least in later chapters so that they feel like an advanced option): this is IMHO the best approach possible- such best approach must be however supported more or less equally for all archetypes, otherwise it will feel unfair: e.g. if the Wizard can take Fighter features but the opposite is not true (as in core 3e), then the overall idea IMHO fails</blockquote>

Verification