Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Frostmarrow" data-source="post: 5857605" data-attributes="member: 1122">The problem isn't as much as a broad class is almost as good in a tight class' niche as a tight class. You only have one action anyway so if you use that to swing a sword or cast a spell matters little. The "problem" is that adventuring is a group activity and the cooperation of differing characters is what makes the game fun. In fiction with a solo hero that hero is versed in a lot of areas. Solo heroes doesn't fit in a role-playing game because they are self-sufficient.Characters in a role-playing game need to depend on each other. It's at the very heart of the activity. I have a strong urge to create self-sufficient characters but I mustn't be allowed. In a way the players must share what a single fictional hero can do. If this creates characters that are one dimensional so be it.I think the broad classes need to find a niche or be left out. Broad classed characters are often suggested to be the fifth character in a party, but that strikes me as an afterthought.I like a notion in Essentials. In the first book there were four classes that created a whole. In the second book there were four classes that created a whole in a different way. Maybe classes should be designed in sets of four? Just a thought.</blockquote>