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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 7652749" data-attributes="member: 46713">Personally, I think there's two situations for which class-based systems make the most sense:1) There are different, distinct mechanical subsystems representing character abilities/powers that are mutually exclusive or must be balanced to some degree. I.e. if spellcasting uses different mechanics than fighting with weapons and balance requires characters to be good at either one or the other, then it makes sense to have separate classes for spellcasting and fighting.2) If the system is tied to a particular setting it makes sense to have classes that represent different archetypes within that setting.For a setting-less or generic system basing classes on archetypes makes little sense, really. Likewise, if all character abilities/powers are mechanically identical and don't have to be prioritized in some way, then it makes little sense to divide classes based on availability of powers.I consider 1) the more important reason, since almost all systems make use of roles in some way.This is because characters are supposed to specialize (since a single character cannot cover all bases) and an effective party requires that all kinds of challenges that will typically come up in the game can be overcome. The number of 'required' classes is therefore a function of the number of 'required' roles and the expected party size. E.g. if the expected average party size is three and there are five roles that need to be covered, each class will have to be able to be good in (at least) two, but no more than four different roles. So anything from five to twenty classes might make sense.Fitting role-based classes into a setting to represent a particular archetype can be achieved using other other mechanical means than a class: backgrounds, templates, builds, kits, etc. How loose or strict these are is basically a matter of preference.I rather strongly disagree with that view. For our group the following statement would much closer to the truth:"This was one of the pre-essentials strengths of 4e, there was no class that a new person could not just sit down and play without a lot of homework."4e caused one of our players who had been playing nothing but fighters and paladins in 1e to 3e to switch gears and discover that he actually enjoyed playing wizards! It was the first edition that put all classes on equal terms regarding complexity. Once you understand how to play a character of any one class, you know how to play every class (well, assuming you understand the tactical implications of it being designed to fill one or two particular roles).</blockquote>

Verification