Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5960001" data-attributes="member: 54877">In prior editions, a lot of people have mostly gotten their way that &quot;a separate class is supposed to be more than mechanics.&quot;&nbsp; But who says that restriction is inherent in Next, in a modular design?&nbsp; Why make that limit?&nbsp; Instead, why not have this list of classes over here that are very much supposed to be more than mechanics, and this list of somewhat similar classes over there that are nothing but mechanics, you supply the tweaks/archetypes?&nbsp; Why not do that?&nbsp;Now your &quot;archetypical&quot; classes can go nuts with the flavor, and your mechanics-only classes can go nuts with clean mechanics.&nbsp;&nbsp; Also note that the &quot;archetypical&quot; classes will probably have a bigger list.&nbsp; You've got the mechanical mage and then the archetypical wizard, sorcerer, warlock, etc.&nbsp;Or if you prefer to think of it this way, since very rarely would a group use some of each, think of it as a giant &quot;class list&quot; module that can be swapped out for one of two thing--archetype classes or mechanical classes.&nbsp; I'd still name them differently, because every now and then some group that mainly prefers the archetypical classes will want some particular character that is done better by adding their own homegrown archetype on top of the pure mechanics version.&nbsp;Of course, the other way to do that would be to make the mechanical, short list of classes as the base classes (not core rules, but base in the sense of &quot;foundational in the system), then express the archetypical classes as particular options and flavor of the mechanical base class.&nbsp; So in that case, a wizard is a mage that's had particular options and flavor attached, while a sorcerer is a mage with a different set.&nbsp; &nbsp;I'd be fine with that, too.&nbsp; I proposed it the other way, so that people that really want their wizard archetypes don't need to share the label. <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" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5960001, member: 54877"] In prior editions, a lot of people have mostly gotten their way that "a separate class is supposed to be more than mechanics." But who says that restriction is inherent in Next, in a modular design? Why make that limit? Instead, why not have this list of classes over here that are very much supposed to be more than mechanics, and this list of somewhat similar classes over there that are nothing but mechanics, you supply the tweaks/archetypes? Why not do that? Now your "archetypical" classes can go nuts with the flavor, and your mechanics-only classes can go nuts with clean mechanics. Also note that the "archetypical" classes will probably have a bigger list. You've got the mechanical mage and then the archetypical wizard, sorcerer, warlock, etc. Or if you prefer to think of it this way, since very rarely would a group use some of each, think of it as a giant "class list" module that can be swapped out for one of two thing--archetype classes or mechanical classes. I'd still name them differently, because every now and then some group that mainly prefers the archetypical classes will want some particular character that is done better by adding their own homegrown archetype on top of the pure mechanics version. Of course, the other way to do that would be to make the mechanical, short list of classes as the base classes (not core rules, but base in the sense of "foundational in the system), then express the archetypical classes as particular options and flavor of the mechanical base class. So in that case, a wizard is a mage that's had particular options and flavor attached, while a sorcerer is a mage with a different set. I'd be fine with that, too. I proposed it the other way, so that people that really want their wizard archetypes don't need to share the label. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification