Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6936982" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think it's the idea of where a &quot;class&quot; comes from in the first place. They seem to mostly be based on archetypes found in fiction. The possible exception to this, at least initially, is clerics. Yes there are priestly types found in fiction, but their role as healers in the game is purely a mechanical aspect.So, is it better to base a class around some archetype, or around some mechanical need or desire in the game space? A blend of the two seems the most likely answer, but if we had to pick, my choice would be the archetype. And yes, I agree that many of the classes could be folded into others, such as the ranger and barbarian being types of fighters. I'm not saying they should do that, but they could have. I don't even think it would be that difficult. But the thing about those classes is that they are also based on clear archetypes within fiction. So while I could understand if they were folded into the Fighter, I also understand why they were not. They seem a little more their own thing with their own elements as opposed to say a thug or a guard or a soldier. And I also agree that one book a year like SCAG would not impact things too much at all. There's like 20 pages of crunch in there. What I'd prefer not to see is an entire book of that size filled with crunch. I mean if it happens, it happens, and I'll likely even buy a copy, but my personal feeling is that the game doesn't need that as much as people seem to think, and that I'm not sure that a book like that is a smart move for WotC at this time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 6936982, member: 6785785"] I think it's the idea of where a "class" comes from in the first place. They seem to mostly be based on archetypes found in fiction. The possible exception to this, at least initially, is clerics. Yes there are priestly types found in fiction, but their role as healers in the game is purely a mechanical aspect. So, is it better to base a class around some archetype, or around some mechanical need or desire in the game space? A blend of the two seems the most likely answer, but if we had to pick, my choice would be the archetype. And yes, I agree that many of the classes could be folded into others, such as the ranger and barbarian being types of fighters. I'm not saying they should do that, but they could have. I don't even think it would be that difficult. But the thing about those classes is that they are also based on clear archetypes within fiction. So while I could understand if they were folded into the Fighter, I also understand why they were not. They seem a little more their own thing with their own elements as opposed to say a thug or a guard or a soldier. And I also agree that one book a year like SCAG would not impact things too much at all. There's like 20 pages of crunch in there. What I'd prefer not to see is an entire book of that size filled with crunch. I mean if it happens, it happens, and I'll likely even buy a copy, but my personal feeling is that the game doesn't need that as much as people seem to think, and that I'm not sure that a book like that is a smart move for WotC at this time. [/QUOTE]

Verification