Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5886243" data-attributes="member: 92511">I like your ideas quite a bit, Ellington.I'm thinking in the more general terms of categorizing the classes with what 5e has stipulated will be the "3 pillars of D&D" in the upcoming iteration.For the purposes of this let's just go simple and say there's some abstract "point" set for each...I'll use 1-4. You can "max out" any ONE single pillar with 4 and your total "pillar points" cannot exceed 9. Then the player can generate as capable in whichever area, or not, or "pretty good all around" of however they wish to fashion their PC. Naturally, themes and backgrounds and such very well might (and probably would) be able to alter these.With that in mind, I would see/imagine "defaults" being something along these lines...Fighters: being the toughest front line guy and the most "common" class in most campaign worlds should be a good, solid, even option across the board with their obvious combat function being the best of the base classes. In other words:Fighter: Combat 4, Exploration 2, Interaction/Social: 3.Clerics: yes, capable in combat but more of an intermediary from the gods to the people, "leaders" of the community, diplomatic arbitrators, but also knowledgeable in history, politics, theology, more than capable of being scholarly, researching things, and so on and so forth. In other words:Cleric: Combat 3, Exploration 2, Interaction/Social: 3Thieves/Rogues: more concerned with getting into and out of tight spots than getting in people's faces. Cunning and avoidance of combat is as desirable (if not more so) than direct combat/confrontation. All the while being completely "at ease" in a variety of social situations (whether that requires attracting attention or avoiding it). In other words:Rogue: Combat 2, Exploration 3, Interaction/Social: 4Mages/Wizards: combat is something to be avoided whenever possible. Sure, I could handle myself, but much more interested in discovering what it is we're there to discover/decipher/uncover and master more of my arcane secrets. Whether they are gregarious, congenial or misanthropic, they are quite capable of "intelligent discourse" with those capable of it. Those who are not...well, why would I want to speak with them anyway?In other words:Mage: Combat 1, Exploration 4, Interaction/Social: 2Gives everyone their particular niches...as a default. Fighters and Rogues being the highest/most adaptive across the board with a total of 9 points. Mages being the most specialized at only 7 pts. Clerics keeping the middle of the road and capable in anything with 8 pts.Now, obviously, all of these are on slide dials....as I said, all of the above would be what I would make "defaults" for those who don't want to be bothered with this level of minutia. And I am not really suggesting that this sort of organizational thing would really have any "in-game mechanical benefits" or not....thinking of it as more of a "PC creation guideline tool" for players to put together a quickie snapshot of their PC's general interests and abilities.A character you create can be a very outgoing friendly wizard who is also a stellar researcher (he's so outgoing because he spends so much time cooped up in libraries and very much enjoys company when he has the opportunity to engage them...or whatever), slide the Social up to 4 and put 3 in Exploration...even chuck a 2 into combat instead of 1 (his research specializes in combat magic?)...since you COULD have up to 9 points. I dunno...this is all just flowing out of my fingers as I'm typing...so maybe it's useless/unnecessary...but as the OP suggested, just an idea board, so I'm throwin' the idea out there.--SD</blockquote>

Verification