Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6196135" data-attributes="member: 4937">Very strongly so. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The only justification I can see for a non-generic base class is that there is a class that is archetypal in the setting but which would not be generally shared across settings - like a class with magic and attacks built around folding and animating paper, or a class with powers solely around shape-changing into plants, or something of that nature.&nbsp; And in any event, such classes shouldn't appear in core books, but in setting specific material.&nbsp; Conversely, the classes that appear in&nbsp; the core books should be suitable for basically any fantasy setting and generic enough that it encourages would be setting designers to conceive unique archetypes as variations of core classes requiring minimal support.&nbsp; For example, maybe if your setting features origami-mancery, you'd be inclined to feel the core sorcerer or wizard needs only minimal extension via a feat or two or a bloodline and some spell support to achieve this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6196135, member: 4937"] Very strongly so. :) The only justification I can see for a non-generic base class is that there is a class that is archetypal in the setting but which would not be generally shared across settings - like a class with magic and attacks built around folding and animating paper, or a class with powers solely around shape-changing into plants, or something of that nature. And in any event, such classes shouldn't appear in core books, but in setting specific material. Conversely, the classes that appear in the core books should be suitable for basically any fantasy setting and generic enough that it encourages would be setting designers to conceive unique archetypes as variations of core classes requiring minimal support. For example, maybe if your setting features origami-mancery, you'd be inclined to feel the core sorcerer or wizard needs only minimal extension via a feat or two or a bloodline and some spell support to achieve this. [/QUOTE]

Verification