Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2093492" data-attributes="member: 172">I don't recall claiming that it was the be all and end all. I do beleive however, it's desireable for enough people who play D&D, especially given the "aquisition of abilities" model D&D is built around, that it is a compelling inclusion.Actually, I rather LIKE the assassin example, because it supports my position. But more on that in a moment. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />As I mentioned previously in the ranger example, the problem here in not lack of sufficient core class options, but narrowly written core class options. (If there is one class that bugs me more than the 3.0 ranger when it comes to narrowness of concept definition, it is the bard. Monk's right up there.)Unfotunately, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. You make an erroneous assertion that there is a single design criteria the game is built around. There are several, and finding the right combination of characteristics is a tradeoff.The game is designed with a certain activity in mind. This is a weakness and a strength. The archetypes are written to the central activity that the game is conceived with. This means that the support for those activities is good, and facilitates those sorts of games when GMs design with those in mind. You get out on the periphery, the support is less good.I beleive a good archetype based game should chose its archetypes to fit the default activity carefully, and make those options as flexible as possible while addressing that activity. Inundating the players with divergant options and hope they make the right choice seems a suboptimal option to me by way of comparison.They are conflated; you're ducking the issue;. The premise of our current dispute was the suitability of prestige classes in defining concepts versus the slathering on of new, only mildly different core classes. Your complaint was, you don't get to step right into the concept you want. Okay, the same goes for a straight fighter. He wants to be able to play (say) a sturdy swordsman who can hew down the opposition like wheat. Nice concept, but it's not going to happen at first level.Now lets take the assassin example. He wants to hide in the shadows and kill with a single well placed blow. Nice concept too, but again, probably not one for first level. It is my contention that a fairly design first (character) level assassin would and should look like a first level rogue anyways.If it's a liberty I am guilty of taking, it is one that you are guilty of taking too, as in your earlier assertion that the glut of classes approach is generally accepted.You are addressing two different issues here. I agree with you on the problem but not the solution. I was only addressing what you are saying is a problem with lack of classes; I am saying I agree on the problem (namely, ther ranger is not a good fit for a wide variety of player concepts for wilderness oriented characters.) Creating a vareity of wilderness oriented classes seems a sloppy solution to me. You have to manage a wider variety of classes and buy a wider variety of books/house rule docs/whatever. I would rather have the classes themselves include a wider degree of player choice.Again, the ranger class is not the only one guilty of this. The cleric was, in fact, the first 3e class to raise my ire in this way, since it does not do a good job of representing clergy who aren't trained in heavy armor.You seem to ask what my solution is. I have two answers to this. My ideal solution and my practical solution.My ideal solution would be that the core classes take a step or two towards GRIM TALES' d20 modern inspired model. Not the stat based classes per se; rather, the aspect of customizing characters. Going all the way to Grim Tales' solution would probably be too much; I wouldn't want to invite the level of low level selection that GURPS or HERO have. I find that having ability selection in the context of archetypes assists in balance and makes it easier on the player. But a bit more customization is good.My practical solution: obviously, WotC and third party publishers have a lot of support for existing classes and the playstyle that they are designed to. Deviating too far from that model would be abandoning a lot of good support. So what do I actually do? I use the existing core classes. I only allow new core classes or variants that strongly resemble existing classes if they are a more general version of the existing classes. I am resistant to inclusion of more narrowly defined core classes, as they only replicate the problem.Examples of rules/variants I do use related to this principle:Ranger - The "non-combat" combat styles and non-spell using variants in WildscapePriest - The priest class from AEG's GoodMonk - The more general martial artist class from beyond monks.Rogue - The version if UA that allows bonus feats in the place of sneak attack.</blockquote>

Verification