Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5733598" data-attributes="member: 54877">That is a very good reason for why the archetype needs to be represented somehow in the game.&nbsp; It says nothing about why &quot;class&quot; needs to be that something, other than some people expect it to be that way.&nbsp; I've already conceded that, and explained that some of us--from the very beginning, expected it not to be that way.&nbsp; I think a careful reading of Dragon magazine letters, variants proposed in early Dragon, and so on, will support me in this contention.&nbsp;I get back to what Umbran said.&nbsp; It's all fine to say that the archetype is expressed via the class--as long as it's my take on the archetype that is expressed.&nbsp; As soon as you start accommodating other people, you either have a huge list of classes or you make the classes have complicated trades to support different variants.&nbsp; &nbsp;Now putting my cards on the table, I think there are two good design options to square the circle on class simplicity versus expressing a wide range of character concepts:&nbsp; 1) Drop classes in favor of some kind of point-buy, skills-based, or other options.&nbsp; 2) Make the classes narrow, meaningful only mechanically, and support multiclassing as the default as a way of expressing characters that aren't one dimensional cardboard cutouts.&nbsp; Since I think D&amp;D needs classes, I don't see the first one as a good choice for D&amp;D.&nbsp; Since I know that people do think in terms of archetypes, I don't object to making archetype a point of discussion in the game advice--or possibly even including some mechanical support for archetype separate from class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5733598, member: 54877"] That is a very good reason for why the archetype needs to be represented somehow in the game. It says nothing about why "class" needs to be that something, other than some people expect it to be that way. I've already conceded that, and explained that some of us--from the very beginning, expected it not to be that way. I think a careful reading of Dragon magazine letters, variants proposed in early Dragon, and so on, will support me in this contention. I get back to what Umbran said. It's all fine to say that the archetype is expressed via the class--as long as it's [B]my[/B] take on the archetype that is expressed. As soon as you start accommodating other people, you either have a huge list of classes or you make the classes have complicated trades to support different variants. Now putting my cards on the table, I think there are two good design options to square the circle on class simplicity versus expressing a wide range of character concepts: 1) Drop classes in favor of some kind of point-buy, skills-based, or other options. 2) Make the classes narrow, meaningful only mechanically, and support multiclassing as the default as a way of expressing characters that aren't one dimensional cardboard cutouts. Since I think D&D needs classes, I don't see the first one as a good choice for D&D. Since I know that people do think in terms of archetypes, I don't object to making archetype a point of discussion in the game advice--or possibly even including some mechanical support for archetype separate from class. [/QUOTE]

Verification