Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 6069587" data-attributes="member: 36160">Dungeons and Dragons has always had a character building -- maybe even character optimization -- minigame.I hate it, and always have.So there's my agenda: I will gladly sacrifice free choice at chargen time for fast, meaningful and simple choices.What Next has done to simplify chargen is already impressive: if so inclined, you no longer select individual skills and feats but just the four-and-a-half items from the title.Groovy. And yet, can we do better, he-asked-leadingly?What do you fellows think of ditching the current paradigm in favor of a more flexible one?At level one, each character selects a major class -- and follows its rules -- and three-ish minor classes -- and follows their rules.Whatever choices were being baked into the system for later choice -- prestige specialties, multiclassing, whatever -- get applied in the obvious way.Examples of major classes include Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Magic-User.Examples of minor classes include Wood Elf (race), Mountain Dwarf (race), Charlatan , Hedge Magician, Sharpshooter, Swashbuckler, Guide, Knight, and so on.Some more unusual major classes might include Talking Bear, Dragon, Golem, Balrog, or Demigod.Advantages of this system include:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a character's power-source is no longer assumed to be learned skills; there can be a BECMI-style race-as-class for certain awesome concepts you have to otherwise water down.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">want to be a knight and a priest? A Noble and a Guide? Go for it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">you can encourage or discourage themes using class keywords: no more than one class, major or minor, with the race keyword. No fewer than one class granting a trait. Every character must have at least one class with the "rural" keyword. Go nuts.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">we can spread things like proficiencies out further: knight might give the "next heavier armor proficiency". Whatever.</li> </ul>And, of course, cons:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">players might want to select two of what are today Specialties, in order to kill things more efficiently.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">if WotC doesn't publish more creative major classes, it won't be helpful to divide 'em this way.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">it leaves an organizational void: specialty presented next to background! madness!</li> </ul>But in my opinion, the cons aren't so bad. We could separate major and minor classes from each other along thematic lines, such as Those Who Fight, Loremasters, Those Who Pray, Citydwellers, Mountain-men, Children of the Woods, and so on.This doesn't destroy the three pillar design, but it does present a wrinkle for skills. I'm not sure how much this bothers me yet <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />"Boons", talents or virtues of a character which are modeled as immaterial magical items, might allow a little more free choice than this preplanned improvement regime, too.Anything interesting here?</blockquote>

Verification