Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 1124595" data-attributes="member: 2205">So, essentially, AFGNCAAP, you're saying you want d20 Modern re-jigged to fantasy, with a lot of prestige classes also re-jigged into Advanced classes?&nbsp; I could certainly see that...Really, I think my ideal solution would be to have fewer classes, but very flexible classes that can easily explore different facets of the archetypes without having to be an all new class.That'd be my perfect solution, I suppose.&nbsp; But as someone earlier said, there's gaming archetypes and there's fantasy archetypes and they don't necessarily coincide.&nbsp; If I were to go through the exercise suggested at the top, and create a &quot;generic&quot; set of classes for an alt.PHB, I'd probably do the following:1)&nbsp; Fighter is a good, flexible class, but it lacks the ability to create a swashbuckler, unfortunately.&nbsp; Something similar to the Unfettered class from AU needs to slide in there somehow to cover all the bases.&nbsp; That gives us (so far) 2 classes.2)&nbsp; Rogue is a great, skill-using class, but not necessarily the ideal one, being somewhat customized as a dungeoneering assassin.&nbsp; Perhaps something more along the lines of the WoT Wanderer or the Star Wars Scoundrel would fit the archetype of a skill user a little better for a truly more generic system.&nbsp; That'd give us a total of 3 classes.&nbsp; Of course, there's nothing wrong with the rogue, so I could potentially use it still.3)&nbsp; There's no reason why divine and arcane magic need to be split the way they are except for D&amp;D archeology that have traditionally made it that way.&nbsp; At a bare minimum, we need at least one magic-using dedicated class.&nbsp; That gives us four classes so far.4)&nbsp; I like the concept of a woodsman as an archetype, but the ranger isn't really very archetypical.&nbsp; Something like the Midnight Wildlander that can be built in a variety of different ways is probably the way to go.&nbsp; Of course, you could simply make this an offshoot of the one of the other basic classes by giving them the Track feat and making Survival a class skill, so this isn't a truly necessary archetype.&nbsp; In fact, I think the one's we've already got are the only &quot;must haves&quot; -- but there's at least one other problem as I see it.&nbsp; Too few choices isn't very fun!&nbsp; There's also not the opportunity to create flavor by doing essentially a similar function but in a very different way (cleric vs druid, for example.)In my ideal world, there'd be between 6-10 classes, and all of them would be very flexible; able to be built into a wide variety of archetypes without significant modification (i.e., if all I have to do is swap a few class skills around, that hardly needs a new class.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 1124595, member: 2205"] So, essentially, AFGNCAAP, you're saying you want d20 Modern re-jigged to fantasy, with a lot of prestige classes also re-jigged into Advanced classes? I could certainly see that... Really, I think my ideal solution would be to have fewer classes, but very flexible classes that can easily explore different facets of the archetypes without having to be an all new class. That'd be my perfect solution, I suppose. But as someone earlier said, there's gaming archetypes and there's fantasy archetypes and they don't necessarily coincide. If I were to go through the exercise suggested at the top, and create a "generic" set of classes for an alt.PHB, I'd probably do the following: 1) Fighter is a good, flexible class, but it lacks the ability to create a swashbuckler, unfortunately. Something similar to the Unfettered class from AU needs to slide in there somehow to cover all the bases. That gives us (so far) 2 classes. 2) Rogue is a great, skill-using class, but not necessarily the ideal one, being somewhat customized as a dungeoneering assassin. Perhaps something more along the lines of the WoT Wanderer or the Star Wars Scoundrel would fit the archetype of a skill user a little better for a truly more generic system. That'd give us a total of 3 classes. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the rogue, so I could potentially use it still. 3) There's no reason why divine and arcane magic need to be split the way they are except for D&D archeology that have traditionally made it that way. At a bare minimum, we need at least one magic-using dedicated class. That gives us four classes so far. 4) I like the concept of a woodsman as an archetype, but the ranger isn't really very archetypical. Something like the Midnight Wildlander that can be built in a variety of different ways is probably the way to go. Of course, you could simply make this an offshoot of the one of the other basic classes by giving them the Track feat and making Survival a class skill, so this isn't a truly necessary archetype. In fact, I think the one's we've already got are the only "must haves" -- but there's at least one other problem as I see it. Too few choices isn't very fun! There's also not the opportunity to create flavor by doing essentially a similar function but in a very different way (cleric vs druid, for example.) In my ideal world, there'd be between 6-10 classes, and all of them would be very flexible; able to be built into a wide variety of archetypes without significant modification (i.e., if all I have to do is swap a few class skills around, that hardly needs a new class.) [/QUOTE]

Verification