Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8304820" data-attributes="member: 7025508">It's not the core of the issue at all. That classes need to be evocative archetypes doesn't preclude balancing them. Now does it mean that some themes cannot function if certain power level is desired? Sure, but that's true for any RPG. I certainly accept that 'guy in the gym' is not a valid archetype in a game where the casters are Doctor Stange. Except for Ars Magica. One thing that also must be understood when talking about D&amp;D, is that one of it's core assumptions is a massive power growth. This means that the fiction of the classes must be built so that it can thematically support that power growth; the archetype must be able to evolve. A normal bloke with a sword is a fine concept for level one fighter, it is not for a level 20 one. One thing I feel 4e did better, was articulating the tiers of play. There was a clear transition to another power level. Furthermore, 5e's class + subclass structure is an excellent way to keeping classes both thematic, yet customisable. Classes itself should be very broad and general archetypes whereas the subclasses are more narrow ones. Granted, I feel the execution isn't always perfect, for example there are too many caster classes, leading them becoming thematically confused.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 8304820, member: 7025508"] It's not the core of the issue at all. That classes need to be evocative archetypes doesn't preclude balancing them. Now does it mean that some themes cannot function if certain power level is desired? Sure, but that's true for any RPG. I certainly accept that 'guy in the gym' is not a valid archetype in a game where the casters are Doctor Stange. Except for Ars Magica. One thing that also must be understood when talking about D&D, is that one of it's core assumptions is a massive power growth. This means that the fiction of the classes must be built so that it can thematically support that power growth; the archetype must be able to evolve. A normal bloke with a sword is a fine concept for level one fighter, it is not for a level 20 one. One thing I feel 4e did better, was articulating the tiers of play. There was a clear transition to another power level. Furthermore, 5e's class + subclass structure is an excellent way to keeping classes both thematic, yet customisable. Classes itself should be very broad and general archetypes whereas the subclasses are more narrow ones. Granted, I feel the execution isn't always perfect, for example there are too many caster classes, leading them becoming thematically confused. [/QUOTE]

Verification