Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5971373" data-attributes="member: 54877">Yes, I've been saying &quot;two different classes, one mundane and one mythic&quot; in the latter part of this topic, because it is way to skip the direct implementation and discuss the ideas and needs behind it.&nbsp; Earlier, Imaro, Underman, and I were discussing other methods.&nbsp; &nbsp;If someone had a wide list of fighter archetypes they wanted to do, we'd probably find that a combination of class, theme, individual feats, &quot;paragon paths,&quot; etc. will be the way to go.&nbsp; There will be a lot of overlap between the various shades of archetypes, and we don't want a class for every last one of them.&nbsp; &nbsp;What's the difference between sets of &quot;mundane&quot; and &quot;mythic&quot; themes geared towards warrior types ... versus sets of &quot;mundane&quot; and &quot;mythic&quot; class ability picks tied to a fighter class?&nbsp; For solving most of the playstyle issues discussed here, not a dime's worth of difference.&nbsp; You still need to get the flavor right for the theme or ability.&nbsp; You still need to label it appropriately so that people know where it fits.&nbsp; The practical differences in those two implementations are more about how all of this interacts with other classes, multiclassing, etc.&nbsp; &nbsp;I don't care how it's done, as long as it's done such that if I want to run a more down to earth campaign, a player can readily have a character that fits the archetype and fits in with the rest of the party, and then the same if I run a more wahoo campaign.&nbsp; I don't care what you call it, where you put it, or exactly how it's implemented.&nbsp; Just make it work close to launch. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5971373, member: 54877"] Yes, I've been saying "two different classes, one mundane and one mythic" in the latter part of this topic, because it is way to skip the direct implementation and discuss the ideas and needs behind it. Earlier, Imaro, Underman, and I were discussing other methods. If someone had a wide list of fighter archetypes they wanted to do, we'd probably find that a combination of class, theme, individual feats, "paragon paths," etc. will be the way to go. There will be a lot of overlap between the various shades of archetypes, and we don't want a class for every last one of them. What's the difference between sets of "mundane" and "mythic" themes geared towards warrior types ... versus sets of "mundane" and "mythic" class ability picks tied to a fighter class? For solving most of the playstyle issues discussed here, not a dime's worth of difference. You still need to get the flavor right for the theme or ability. You still need to label it appropriately so that people know where it fits. The practical differences in those two implementations are more about how all of this interacts with other classes, multiclassing, etc. I don't care how it's done, as long as it's done such that if I want to run a more down to earth campaign, a player can readily have a character that fits the archetype and fits in with the rest of the party, and then the same if I run a more wahoo campaign. I don't care what you call it, where you put it, or exactly how it's implemented. Just make it work close to launch. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification