Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5997719" data-attributes="member: 46713">I think you can't have it both ways. Currently your list includes both extremely broad and quite narrow archetypes.A better solution would be to either get rid of the broad archetypes (fighter, wizard, cleric) or offer _only_ these broad archetypes with a ton of customization options.I think it's rather easy to see why having a 'fighter' class is a problem: What martial archetype could not be represented as a fighter? None. It's the very definition of a fighter class, that it can be anything as long as it's a martial archetype.Get rid of the fighter and suddenly the warlord is a very viable, unique archetype that cannot be represented by another class.Likewise you solve the problem of the extremely wide range of different cleric flavours: just create any number of focused classes to represent the different types of clerics.If there's no common ground between two different clerics apart from worshipping some kind of concept or being and somehow receiving power from it you simply don't have enough for a good archetype.Ditto the wizard vs. warlock, sorcerer, etc.: Having a one-size-fits-all class with a dozen different specializations is bad if you intend to introduce different classes sharing the same power source.If you choose the reverse option, you've essentially created a new class-less variant of D&amp;D. And I'm doubtful about a D&amp;D without classes, there's other rpgs that went down that road and, imho, that just ain't D&amp;D.TL;DR: D&amp;D Next should only have _focused_ archetypes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jhaelen, post: 5997719, member: 46713"] I think you can't have it both ways. Currently your list includes both extremely broad and quite narrow archetypes. A better solution would be to either get rid of the broad archetypes (fighter, wizard, cleric) or offer _only_ these broad archetypes with a ton of customization options. I think it's rather easy to see why having a 'fighter' class is a problem: What martial archetype could not be represented as a fighter? None. It's the very definition of a fighter class, that it can be anything as long as it's a martial archetype. Get rid of the fighter and suddenly the warlord is a very viable, unique archetype that cannot be represented by another class. Likewise you solve the problem of the extremely wide range of different cleric flavours: just create any number of focused classes to represent the different types of clerics. If there's no common ground between two different clerics apart from worshipping some kind of concept or being and somehow receiving power from it you simply don't have enough for a good archetype. Ditto the wizard vs. warlock, sorcerer, etc.: Having a one-size-fits-all class with a dozen different specializations is bad if you intend to introduce different classes sharing the same power source. If you choose the reverse option, you've essentially created a new class-less variant of D&D. And I'm doubtful about a D&D without classes, there's other rpgs that went down that road and, imho, that just ain't D&D. TL;DR: D&D Next should only have _focused_ archetypes. [/QUOTE]

Verification