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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6542244" data-attributes="member: 2656">In class based RPGs I prefer a larger number of specialised classes to a smaller number of broad classes with lots of options. The former allows the class name itself to be more descriptive of the desired style of play of the character - it's "role" within the party if you like, and narrower classes are easier to balance IMO. The latter is arguably more flexible.Broad classes can produce communication problems rather than preventing them. For instance the fighter archer is a case in point. In the setup for a typical D&D game I have seen players agree to "play the fighter" by which the other players understood  melee fighter, someone to hold the line, and then subsequently find out the fighter was primarily an archer and didn't serve the role the others anticipated. While players are entitled to play whatever concept they want given the tacit acceptance of the group, trying to sneak in a concept by passive aggressive means is facilitated by messy incoherent mechanics that lack focus (as I see it, YMMV).Broad classes are generalists typically, with some capability at everything under their umbrella of interest. Issues can arise when a more narrowly focused class exists that covers a small portion of the capabilities of a broader class. Should the specialist be better than the generalist in that specific area? How big should the difference in capabilties be if any? And now you have two ways to implement the same character concept, one typically better than the other in capabilities. But what if someone prefers the disadvantaged class?There are lots of question marks here because these are difficult design decisions where the answers are often a matter of taste and the class design philosophy you prefer.</blockquote>

Verification