Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 9358356" data-attributes="member: 7017304">I think each new kind of magic should get its own system - clerics shouldn't cast like wizards who shouldn't cast like druids, etc. I think sorcerer currently represents multiple kinds of magic, so lumping them together isn't really a good idea. Dragon magic shouldn't work like wild magic which shouldn't work like shadow magic, etc.I therefore think each kind of magic should get&nbsp; it's own class at least, or more than one depending on how it interacts with other systems like combat.So to start: Arcane gets wizard and artificer, divine gets cleric (white mage really) and paladin, primal gets druid and beastmaster ranger and warden/primal barbarian, dragon magic gets sorcerer and dragoon, fiendish magic gets warlock and hexblade, wild magic gets wild mage, shadow magic gets shadowcaster, rune magic gets runesmith. Bards either get their own kind of magic or the ability to dabble in multiple other types. Qi gets the mystic and monk. So that's 17 before we get to martials.Martials should be broken down equally narrowly; I could go by source again (grit, rage, finesse, technique, pure skill) but I prefer a more fighting-style oriented design since I think those capture fantasies better: heavy (str-fight and nonmagic barbarian), swashbuckler, archer, assassin, swordsage, bastion, warlord. Obviously the names need work.Which nets us 24 classes.I'd also really want to use PF2-style archetypes (which are class-independent) as a way to add even more flexibility to the mix; they're the best way to add a bit of magic to a martial or up the martial-ness of a half-caster, while also adding mixed-style warriors, skill specialists without trying to make a non-combat class in a skirmish game, and even more niche options as desired.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmartkdr2, post: 9358356, member: 7017304"] I think each new kind of magic should get its own system - clerics shouldn't cast like wizards who shouldn't cast like druids, etc. I think sorcerer currently represents multiple kinds of magic, so lumping them together isn't really a good idea. Dragon magic shouldn't work like wild magic which shouldn't work like shadow magic, etc. I therefore think each kind of magic should get it's own class at least, or more than one depending on how it interacts with other systems like combat. So to start: Arcane gets wizard and artificer, divine gets cleric (white mage really) and paladin, primal gets druid and beastmaster ranger and warden/primal barbarian, dragon magic gets sorcerer and dragoon, fiendish magic gets warlock and hexblade, wild magic gets wild mage, shadow magic gets shadowcaster, rune magic gets runesmith. Bards either get their own kind of magic or the ability to dabble in multiple other types. Qi gets the mystic and monk. So that's 17 before we get to martials. Martials should be broken down equally narrowly; I could go by source again (grit, rage, finesse, technique, pure skill) but I prefer a more fighting-style oriented design since I think those capture fantasies better: heavy (str-fight and nonmagic barbarian), swashbuckler, archer, assassin, swordsage, bastion, warlord. Obviously the names need work. Which nets us 24 classes. I'd also [I]really[/I] want to use PF2-style archetypes (which are class-independent) as a way to add even more flexibility to the mix; they're the best way to add a bit of magic to a martial or up the martial-ness of a half-caster, while also adding mixed-style warriors, skill specialists without trying to make a non-combat class in a skirmish game, and even more niche options as desired. [/QUOTE]

Verification