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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7652932" data-attributes="member: 20323">[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]Another reason why lots of highly specific classes might not work is that clarity of intent and player follow-thru can vastly differ. Many players and some DMs don't have a narrow set up of the campaign world's themes, and prefer to find it during play. To start out and say "this campaign is focused on intrigue" would be a turn-off to that emergent play style.This gets back to the idea of class breadth serving to keep players engaged in different arenas of the game (5e's combat, exploration, and roleplaying is one example). A flexible broader class - and a good muliticlass system - lets a player expand their character into the unfolding story...rather than require the two to be in synch from the get go.Effectively the same options might be present in a list of 100 classes, each essentially stripping one of the Classic classes of its stuff. However this would be a nightmare for players to manage...I want to cast teleport, which class do I look to do that, Radiant Mage, Crystal Dragon Seer, Scholarly Wizard, or...? And if it becomes common for characters to have 1-3 levels in multiple classes, it dilutes the archetype that helps other players understand a PC's capabilities. "I'm a ranger" means something to players as a tool for party building, and expectation of where the PC will be most useful.So here are the three things that broader classes do right:1. Accommodate emergent (rather than focused) gameplay.2. Encourage all players to participate in the various arenas of the game (if well-designed).3. Provide a common table language (and ease of player character creation/leveling).</blockquote>

Verification