Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shayuri" data-source="post: 7652929" data-attributes="member: 4936">I'll say two things up front.One; a giant book full of overly specific classes is something I find personally kind of repulsive. It reminds me far too much of my old Palladium days.Two; I am not opposed, however, to the idea of a kind of 'class construction set' where classes can be deconstructed and reconstructed according to rules, to personalize them for a specific setting. Something like the Races book in Pathfinder maybe, only with more options presented.Of course, in the end, that starts to look a lot like a point-buy classless system, albeit with a bit more structure in it. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, but it might be seen as undercutting the whole emphasis on class that you have.If classes are so specific that anyone can build a 'class of one' that only they have and has any combination of approved abilities, then you don't really have a class anymore. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's not what you're proposing, of course, but it would represent another point on the same continuum. My preferred take on classes is for a class to be relatively broad in its overall mission statement, but then allow for significant flexibility in the assignment of its particulars. A good example would be how Pathfinder handles some of its classes.A 'rogue' is a 'sneaky, skilled guy who strikes by surprise.' There are endless iterations of that possible though, via the selection of Talents and various alternative class kits. If there were released rules that one could use to customize the Talents list, and introduce new alternative class kits, that would be fine. Even great. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So yeah, I like the notion of seeing class as a kind of archetype, which the player can then narrow down and make specific via a robust system of customization built into the class. Wizards select school affiliations and arcane bond foci and perhaps choose a kit to reflect slightly variant mechanics. Fighters have combat moves and bonus feats and more alternative sets of abilities that change 'fighter' into 'fearless warlord' or 'howling savage.'And so on.You could do Fearless Warlord or Howling Savage as separate, specific classes of their own too...but why? If one basic core mechanic, with relatively minor variations, can represent both, treating them as offshoots of a single class just makes sense to me. The specificity you're talking about doesn't have to be reflected by individually constructed classes. Just pick a broad class that comes close, and tweak to suit your taste. Rules to cover those tweaks would be great though. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification