Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5704620" data-attributes="member: 54877">I know it has several major drawbacks, but I can't quite shake the thought that D&amp;D would work better if the default was that every character was built on 3 classes.&nbsp; &nbsp;The classes would necessarily need to be somewhat more narrow than they typically are.&nbsp; Otherwise, you'd end up with something that might as well be a point-based system, or the derived math would quickly become ridiculous.&nbsp; &nbsp;Build multiclassing as the default, and you can get to the equivalent of single class fairly easily.&nbsp; In the complete game, if you want the traditional experience, then the &quot;fighter&quot; becomes a &quot;fighter, knight, barbarian&quot; while the &quot;rogue&quot; is a &quot;rogue, thief, acrobat&quot;.&nbsp; But if you want well-rounded characters, then you might have players build to exact concepts.&nbsp; The &quot;fighter&quot; is maybe a &quot;fighter, paladin, ranger&quot; or even a &quot;ranger, barbarian, bard&quot;.&nbsp; You can get as exotic or not, as you want.&nbsp; &nbsp;When you have only 3 players, they easily divy up the responsibilities that they want to cover.&nbsp; If you have 8 players, the extreme number of possible class combinations is far greater than the class list.&nbsp; So you get some &quot;concept protection&quot; easily rendered in mechanics, even if simple niches are overlapped.&nbsp;For the &quot;basic&quot; version of the game, you have alternate rules for dropping to two classes, or even one--for something that plays a lot more like Red Box.&nbsp; (The DMG would need guidelines on adjusting adventures and challenges.)&nbsp; &quot;Companion&quot; characters are also of this nature.&nbsp; &nbsp;You can easily have classes that don't do well in combat.&nbsp; These are &quot;companion&quot; NPCs or meant to be used as the last class chosen for a PC to round out a concept.&nbsp; They are marked as such.&nbsp; So the group knows not to build a character on nothing but these--unless the group is experienced and comfortable enough with that, to handle it.&nbsp; &nbsp;And perhaps best of all, we don't get wonky, half broken, half wimpy, half goofy multiclass rules built on a single-class chassis. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp;If we absolutely must have something easier to choose for &quot;quick start&quot;, then I suggest some classic &quot;archetypes&quot; already put together out of the three classes, through the whole level range.&nbsp; That would be fairly close to existing classes now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5704620, member: 54877"] I know it has several major drawbacks, but I can't quite shake the thought that D&D would work better if the default was that every character was built on 3 classes. The classes would necessarily need to be somewhat more narrow than they typically are. Otherwise, you'd end up with something that might as well be a point-based system, or the derived math would quickly become ridiculous. Build multiclassing as the default, and you can get to the equivalent of single class fairly easily. In the complete game, if you want the traditional experience, then the "fighter" becomes a "fighter, knight, barbarian" while the "rogue" is a "rogue, thief, acrobat". But if you want well-rounded characters, then you might have players build to exact concepts. The "fighter" is maybe a "fighter, paladin, ranger" or even a "ranger, barbarian, bard". You can get as exotic or not, as you want. When you have only 3 players, they easily divy up the responsibilities that they want to cover. If you have 8 players, the extreme number of possible class combinations is far greater than the class list. So you get some "concept protection" easily rendered in mechanics, even if simple niches are overlapped. For the "basic" version of the game, you have alternate rules for dropping to two classes, or even one--for something that plays a lot more like Red Box. (The DMG would need guidelines on adjusting adventures and challenges.) "Companion" characters are also of this nature. You can easily have classes that don't do well in combat. These are "companion" NPCs or meant to be used as the last class chosen for a PC to round out a concept. They are marked as such. So the group knows not to build a character on nothing but these--unless the group is experienced and comfortable enough with that, to handle it. And perhaps best of all, we don't get wonky, half broken, half wimpy, half goofy multiclass rules built on a single-class chassis. :p If we absolutely must have something easier to choose for "quick start", then I suggest some classic "archetypes" already put together out of the three classes, through the whole level range. That would be fairly close to existing classes now. [/QUOTE]

Verification