Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6677905" data-attributes="member: 40177">Yeah, I can get that.&nbsp; No arguments here.Well, my favourite game is the d6 System, which is pretty class-less.&nbsp; And my favourite way to play D&amp;D is with the generic classes system, so yeah, there's that.&nbsp; Until I decide that 5e is complete awesome, BECMI is my favourite edition.&nbsp; So, yeah, there's that, absolutely.&nbsp; As for GURPS... it's too rulesy, which is an instant put-off for me.&nbsp; 5e as it stands now strikes a pretty good balance between everything I want in a game, and everything my players want.&nbsp; But it's not perfect, not by a long shot.&nbsp; &nbsp;Fair.&nbsp; But the words &quot;assassin&quot; strike up an entirely different connotation than, say, &quot;sniper&quot;.&nbsp; Or &quot;ambusher&quot;.&nbsp; Or &quot;bandit&quot;.&nbsp; All of which could be considered to do similar things.&nbsp; I'd rather have a class that has one player say &quot;hey, I can use this to make Artemis Fowl!&quot; and another player say &quot;Hey, I can use this to make Waylander the Slayer!&quot; and a third say &quot;I can use this to make a version of Merlin from the Skystone series!&quot;.&nbsp; This is much better than the designers going &quot;Ok, how can we make this class seem like Artemis Fowl?&quot;I'm of two minds.&nbsp; I actually kind of like it, because it is flavourful and cool, and easy to ignore if you wanna go that way.&nbsp; But enough rogues have existed that have had cants that it actually kind of makes sense to me.&nbsp; But I see what you're getting at, and I'll cede the point.&nbsp; And I'd do it again in a heartbeat, see.&nbsp; I was working on my own heartbreak D&amp;D before I knew about 5e.&nbsp; It was going to be a 3.5/BECMI cross.&nbsp; It had four classes, and &quot;talents&quot; that were open to any class.&nbsp; So you could be a fighter with druidic shapechange, for example.&nbsp; So, that's where my mind was for how to go forward with D&amp;D.&nbsp; Generic classes with flavourful add-ons.&nbsp; Of course, this isn't entirely fair, because that was something I was writing for personal use, and not a game for a mass market.&nbsp; But I generally like how 5e went, and yes, I like subclasses.&nbsp; There are a few I can do without, but really, that's D&amp;D, and it's the way it shoudl be.&nbsp; It's not just a game for me, and that's a selling point.&nbsp; As for wizards, if I were the D&amp;D designer, I think the way they went was the ONLY way to go.&nbsp; I mean, the precise abilities could've been different, sure, but the idea of 8 subclasses tied to specific schools?&nbsp; Had to go that way.&nbsp; Now, if I were designing a new RPG without any of the sacred cows of D&amp;D thrown in the mix, yeah, I would've gone in a different direction, and gone with three or four subclasses for the wizard.&nbsp; It might be sacreligious, but I might've gone with the 4e model of &quot;Orb mage, book mage, staff mage, wand mage&quot; or something to that effect.&nbsp; Or go with the classical magical version of earth air fire water, or who knows what else?&nbsp; In the end, I'm not against flavour.&nbsp; I just think flavour should be implied instead of spelled out.&nbsp; That way, five people can look at the same class and draw five different conclusions on what its flavour is, as opposed to a class that convinces most of those five players to come to a strong conclusion on what that class is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 6677905, member: 40177"] Yeah, I can get that. No arguments here. Well, my favourite game is the d6 System, which is pretty class-less. And my favourite way to play D&D is with the generic classes system, so yeah, there's that. Until I decide that 5e is complete awesome, BECMI is my favourite edition. So, yeah, there's that, absolutely. As for GURPS... it's too rulesy, which is an instant put-off for me. 5e as it stands now strikes a pretty good balance between everything I want in a game, and everything my players want. But it's not perfect, not by a long shot. Fair. But the words "assassin" strike up an entirely different connotation than, say, "sniper". Or "ambusher". Or "bandit". All of which could be considered to do similar things. I'd rather have a class that has one player say "hey, I can use this to make Artemis Fowl!" and another player say "Hey, I can use this to make Waylander the Slayer!" and a third say "I can use this to make a version of Merlin from the Skystone series!". This is much better than the designers going "Ok, how can we make this class seem like Artemis Fowl?" I'm of two minds. I actually kind of like it, because it is flavourful and cool, and easy to ignore if you wanna go that way. But enough rogues have existed that have had cants that it actually kind of makes sense to me. But I see what you're getting at, and I'll cede the point. And I'd do it again in a heartbeat, see. I was working on my own heartbreak D&D before I knew about 5e. It was going to be a 3.5/BECMI cross. It had four classes, and "talents" that were open to any class. So you could be a fighter with druidic shapechange, for example. So, that's where my mind was for how to go forward with D&D. Generic classes with flavourful add-ons. Of course, this isn't entirely fair, because that was something I was writing for personal use, and not a game for a mass market. But I generally like how 5e went, and yes, I like subclasses. There are a few I can do without, but really, that's D&D, and it's the way it shoudl be. It's not just a game for me, and that's a selling point. As for wizards, if I were the D&D designer, I think the way they went was the ONLY way to go. I mean, the precise abilities could've been different, sure, but the idea of 8 subclasses tied to specific schools? Had to go that way. Now, if I were designing a new RPG without any of the sacred cows of D&D thrown in the mix, yeah, I would've gone in a different direction, and gone with three or four subclasses for the wizard. It might be sacreligious, but I might've gone with the 4e model of "Orb mage, book mage, staff mage, wand mage" or something to that effect. Or go with the classical magical version of earth air fire water, or who knows what else? In the end, I'm not against flavour. I just think flavour should be implied instead of spelled out. That way, five people can look at the same class and draw five different conclusions on what its flavour is, as opposed to a class that convinces most of those five players to come to a strong conclusion on what that class is. [/QUOTE]

Verification