Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scars Unseen" data-source="post: 8526636" data-attributes="member: 10196">I don't think that's necessarily true within the scope of this topic though.&nbsp; Another way of phrasing what OP wants is &quot;how can we make each class distinct?&quot;&nbsp; It's a separate question from characters, because there are a number of ways to make characters themselves unique, not the least of which is simply roleplaying them differently, which requires no mechanical distinction at all.&nbsp; The question does require that you are able to roll with the idea that having classes stand out from each other mechanically is a good thing.&nbsp; I'm getting that some people don't care as much about that, but then that's what the (+) is for:&nbsp; to keep the whole thread from devolving into bickering over whether the base premise is worth discussing in the first place.So as for making classes distinct.&nbsp; I think there are two basic approaches you can take.&nbsp; First is niche protection.&nbsp; This I think is an easier if limiting way to do it since there are only so many classes you can make this way before you either get duplication of niches or a blurring of lines, both of which contribute to the homogenization of classes.&nbsp; It really means you go back to TSR era classes, maybe even pre-AD&amp;D.&nbsp; It's workable, but I think at that point, you may as well be playing an OSR game.The other approach I can see, and the one I'd prefer, is fiction emulation.&nbsp; You take a concept, imagine how you'd want it to play out in a story (or just look at actual literature that is close to what you want), and then find a way to work that into the core mechanics.&nbsp; Instead of saying that a necromancer is a caster so it's built like a caster, you get rid of the idea of casters being standardized in the first place, and you look at what a necromancer is supposed to do.&nbsp; You do the same with the fighter.&nbsp; Is the fighter a duelist?&nbsp; A soldier?&nbsp; A commander?&nbsp; Would all three be built the same way?&nbsp; How might a warrior class structure work differently than a caster class structure?&nbsp; In what ways to martial characters in fiction change throughout the story?&nbsp; This approach might be harder to balance since it combines the possibilities of a larger number of classes with a wider variety of class designs, but it also allows some roles to have redundancy without feeling redundant.&nbsp; A cleric, a warlord and certain interpretations of a necromancer could all keep a party on their feet, but they would do so in completely different ways.&nbsp; A duelist might lock down a powerful opponent down, while a paladin might keep movement in reserve to keep themselves between a vulnerable party member and any opponent who tries to approach.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scars Unseen, post: 8526636, member: 10196"] I don't think that's necessarily true within the scope of this topic though. Another way of phrasing what OP wants is "how can we make each class distinct?" It's a separate question from characters, because there are a number of ways to make characters themselves unique, not the least of which is simply roleplaying them differently, which requires no mechanical distinction at all. The question does require that you are able to roll with the idea that having classes stand out from each other mechanically is a good thing. I'm getting that some people don't care as much about that, but then that's what the (+) is for: to keep the whole thread from devolving into bickering over whether the base premise is worth discussing in the first place. So as for making classes distinct. I think there are two basic approaches you can take. First is niche protection. This I think is an easier if limiting way to do it since there are only so many classes you can make this way before you either get duplication of niches or a blurring of lines, both of which contribute to the homogenization of classes. It really means you go back to TSR era classes, maybe even pre-AD&D. It's workable, but I think at that point, you may as well be playing an OSR game. The other approach I can see, and the one I'd prefer, is fiction emulation. You take a concept, imagine how you'd want it to play out in a story (or just look at actual literature that is close to what you want), and then find a way to work that into the core mechanics. Instead of saying that a necromancer is a caster so it's built like a caster, you get rid of the idea of casters being standardized in the first place, and you look at what a necromancer is supposed to do. You do the same with the fighter. Is the fighter a duelist? A soldier? A commander? Would all three be built the same way? How might a warrior class structure work differently than a caster class structure? In what ways to martial characters in fiction change throughout the story? This approach might be harder to balance since it combines the possibilities of a larger number of classes with a wider variety of class [I]designs[/I], but it also allows some roles to have redundancy without feeling redundant. A cleric, a warlord and certain interpretations of a necromancer could all keep a party on their feet, but they would do so in completely different ways. A duelist might lock down a powerful opponent down, while a paladin might keep movement in reserve to keep themselves between a vulnerable party member and any opponent who tries to approach. [/QUOTE]

Verification