Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9025319" data-attributes="member: 6704184">In the game I’m building, there are archetypes, which are level one ability packages that set you on a path. If you’re a slayer, you have signature skills and traits, attribute bonuses, and skill and trait lists, that lend themselves to playing a hunter and ganker of monsters. If you choose Alchemist, those features will make it very easy to be good at making, performing certain types of rituals, and doing other Alchemist stuff. The Slayer’s Arsenal doesn’t mean you have to keep taking slayer stuff, it just means you will always be a competent slayer, no matter what you lean into later. Now, those two archetypes have very easily understood names. That is Name Type One. Name Type Two is the evocative and mysterious name. Playing a Benedante means playing someone who has ties to witchcraft, spirits, Night Battles, and Shifters, but whose purpose is to help folks whether they’re Human or Hidden Folk, to keep the balance of the Nine Realms intact, keep the Crossroads safe, and sometimes act as extra-legal arbiters and well, Rangers in the old west sense. Playing a Bridger means playing something like a witch, a shaman, or a seer. A person who has gone into the spirit world and found a kindred spirit called a Fetch that acts as Familiar and companion. Bridgers are looked to for remedies social and mystical and even medical in some communities, and often wield significant social power. Anathemir are similar to a D&D warlock without the patron. They’ve sought out or stumbled upon power of a dangerous nature, that others are wise enough to leave alone, and bound it to themselves. What makes a warlock into an Anathemir is the choice to use that power to fight the Anathema that others use the same power to summon and control. So the questions I have for you, fellow forumers, are these: <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Do you think it works to have a mix of name types, like above, or do you think a game should name all classes/archetypes in the same general style?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Do you prefer one style over the other? Curious both about when you’re reading someone else’s work and about what you prefer when creating. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">What’s a better name for a diplomat class than Diplomat!? <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😂" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f602.png" title="Face with tears of joy    :joy:" data-shortname=":joy:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></li> </ol></blockquote>

Verification