Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7036710" data-attributes="member: 20564">I think we're also trained at how we look at these differences because of the class structure of D&D.For instance, in a different context, an oracle would be a completely different thing then a necromancer.  Someone who mastered all sorts of magics would be very different then someone who had a single theme.  Can you point out three strong iconic characters that you think represent the "Abjurer" archetype - what, the abjurer isn't an archetype anywhere outside D&D you say?I agree with the distinctions given above and in the classes as some valid paths to power.  But if that's how to divine the classes is a different question.  For example,  an alchemist (lots of study and hard work) should not play the same as a "traditional" wizard even though they have the same path of master of arcane power.  And we've seen Wizards try a Wizard (Artificer) and just recently replace it with a separate Artificer class even though both are the same path to power.What that brings me to is that it's more the expression of power that needs seperate mechanics.  Having two sets of mechanics that produce near-enough results (like wizard and sorcerer) are questionable - either make them much more distinct, or make them subclasses.I like as little rules clutter as we need - but no less.  I like the idea that different arcanists play differently, just like the rogue and the fighter play differently.So what type of arcane archetypes do you see in fitting into a D&D-type world?  From there we could come up with some classifications and figure out what we need from there.</blockquote>

Verification