Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5613069" data-attributes="member: 54877">I'm divided on this question.&nbsp; &nbsp;1. Part of me wants a tight, relatively small (4-12) set of mechanically distinct classes.&nbsp; And by that, I mean really distinct.&nbsp; If you fight with weapons, you have some fighter levels.&nbsp; Or if you want to be closer to 12 than 4 classes, you might divide that into &quot;fighter&quot; for melee weapons and &quot;archer&quot; for ranged.&nbsp; And once you've divided the relevant mechanical bits among your classes, that's it.&nbsp; No more classes, ever.&nbsp; &nbsp;Then, since those aren't archetypes, let alone viable characters, and I agree that D&amp;D needs those, I think you need the archetypes defined separately.&nbsp; Here, you can define a few of the more common combinations, with suggested ways to realize them.&nbsp; &nbsp;All the mechanic interaction is through the classes or other mechanical elements, though.&nbsp; Archetypes are just ways to put the mechanics together and attach flavor to it, to simplify play and getting started. &nbsp;I'm not that picky about what you call &quot;class&quot; or &quot;archetype&quot; in such a system, though I will note that what I've called &quot;class&quot; above is mechanically broad enough to not be subsumed into skills.&nbsp; I want more than 12 skills in a skill-based system.&nbsp; I did rather like the DragonQuest take on this, BTW.&nbsp; It's a shame that WotC sits on the DQ IP and will never let it out.&nbsp;2. But back to the divide. Part of me also recognizes that once you dilute &quot;class&quot; that strongly, you might be better off writing a different system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5613069, member: 54877"] I'm divided on this question. 1. Part of me wants a tight, relatively small (4-12) set of mechanically distinct classes. And by that, I mean really distinct. If you fight with weapons, you have some fighter levels. Or if you want to be closer to 12 than 4 classes, you might divide that into "fighter" for melee weapons and "archer" for ranged. And once you've divided the relevant mechanical bits among your classes, that's it. No more classes, ever. Then, since those aren't archetypes, let alone viable characters, and I agree that D&D needs those, I think you need the archetypes defined separately. Here, you can define a few of the more common combinations, with suggested ways to realize them. All the mechanic interaction is through the classes or other mechanical elements, though. Archetypes are just ways to put the mechanics together and attach flavor to it, to simplify play and getting started. I'm not that picky about what you call "class" or "archetype" in such a system, though I will note that what I've called "class" above is mechanically broad enough to not be subsumed into skills. I want more than 12 skills in a skill-based system. I did rather like the DragonQuest take on this, BTW. It's a shame that WotC sits on the DQ IP and will never let it out. 2. But back to the divide. Part of me also recognizes that once you dilute "class" that strongly, you might be better off writing a different system. [/QUOTE]

Verification