Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4650967" data-attributes="member: 54707">I think it is an interesting question Scrib for two separate but related reasons.First of all I like encapsulated, well defined, classical and archetypal characters, like the original Wizard, Paladin, Cleric, etc. But I also recognize that the game must adapt as time goes on and that more and more things in our world are becoming programmable, and that they appeal to different individuals because they are "easily programmable," meaning they are also easy to customize and individualize. Things that are easily "programmable" are popular to the modern mind, and are flexible and also powerful in many ways, and that's the way I think characters should be designed for future development. It's the way I'm designing character classes (professions) for the Conjunction contest. There will be a "base class," and then you can program in other attributes as your career develops. Because a game class is really a profession, not a class at all.To use an analogy think of a modern soldier. You start out as a grunt, become a specialist and then later on can become Special Forces, a Paratrooper, enter an air wing, go into Intel, or even add on other related skills such as law enforcement capabilities and skills, investigative skills, survival skills, general abilities, or even stuff like thieving skills. Many soldiers learn infiltration and surreptitious entry skills for information retrieval, counter-terrorism and for hunting down drug cartel members. Same for fighters, or Rangers, who would excel with certain infiltration skill add-ons. There will also be classless types.  So you can start out with a general base then go in any direction you like, or start out classless and then "concentrate." Plus I'll allow Skill Suites, and even Capability Suites, such as Vadding, or Survival Suites that are open to any and all classes. (I like some of the 4E class designs in this way, for what they imply about class crossover flexibility.) Imagine a Cleric who wants to learn to manhunt. He can learn this from a Ranger he pays to teach him. He may never be as good as the Ranger because he has other things he must also do, but he can learn to do so if he is interested, and he can practice and become better at it. He can become a Renaissance character, not just limited to "clerical stuff." If he wishes he can also multi-class. So you'd have three or more options in how to proceed with your career. You could take Base, and then program it, take Classless and then devise as you go along, or take Multiclass.But I think all in all that every character type should be programmable in some way, though I think 4E took a big and good step in that detection. It's not what I'm imagining but it's in the right direction. It's the trend of the modern world, and the overall mind-set of the modern world. The second reason the question is interesting is change. The modern world is full of change and career adaptation. I think character classes and races and so forth ought to change over time. They did historically anyways. And programmable and flexible character types and classes that are open to change over time just make for better classes. So if classes are programmable then they are open to easy modification and then are flexible when it comes to change, either in-game change, or market desire change.Now that doesn't mean you can't have classical archetypes, it just means they become more flexible over time and that individual interpretations of them become much more flexible in general.</blockquote>

Verification