Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="schneeland" data-source="post: 9160680" data-attributes="member: 6900337">That would definitely be true to me. Especially if we look at it from a cross edition perspective, D&amp;D-like fantasy, at its heart, has four large character buckets for me:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fighting expert</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Skill expert</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Arcane caster</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Divine caster</li>
</ol>Now each specific campaign might have more classes, but those four are basically the foundation for me (and also a reason, why I'm not fully onboard with some OSR/NSR systems folding arcane and divine caster into a single class).However, there two additional reasons why I find it hard to pick something beyond those four as core:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">For me, the level of abstraction differs between these four and something like Druid, Bard or Ranger - the above-mentioned four could also serve as building blocks, so a Bard could be mostly skill-fokused with a bit of arcane casting, or a Range a hybrid between fighter and skill expert with a focus on exploration skills, bows and traps</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The above four have a rather clear distinction and while multiple hybrids would be possible, the moment you e.g. add Barbarian, it overlaps with the fighter and the moment you add a druid, it overlaps with the cleric</li>
</ol>Now it would be equally possible to look at possible archetypes of classical fantasy and decide that each should have its own class. In that case, the above four should rather be broken up. However, if we keep the above four, then I'm fine with those. And since we have two more &quot;slots&quot; for the 6 class model, we can add Elf and Dwarf as class. Halflings lose, but I'm sure they don't mind spending their days tending to their gardens and having second breakfast instead of going on adventures&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="schneeland, post: 9160680, member: 6900337"] That would definitely be true to me. Especially if we look at it from a cross edition perspective, D&D-like fantasy, at its heart, has four large character buckets for me: [LIST=1] [*]Fighting expert [*]Skill expert [*]Arcane caster [*]Divine caster [/LIST] Now each specific campaign might have more classes, but those four are basically the foundation for me (and also a reason, why I'm not fully onboard with some OSR/NSR systems folding arcane and divine caster into a single class). However, there two additional reasons why I find it hard to pick something beyond those four as core: [LIST=1] [*]For me, the level of abstraction differs between these four and something like Druid, Bard or Ranger - the above-mentioned four could also serve as building blocks, so a Bard could be mostly skill-fokused with a bit of arcane casting, or a Range a hybrid between fighter and skill expert with a focus on exploration skills, bows and traps [*]The above four have a rather clear distinction and while multiple hybrids would be possible, the moment you e.g. add Barbarian, it overlaps with the fighter and the moment you add a druid, it overlaps with the cleric [/LIST] Now it would be equally possible to look at possible archetypes of classical fantasy and decide that each should have its own class. In that case, the above four should rather be broken up. However, if we keep the above four, then I'm fine with those. And since we have two more "slots" for the 6 class model, we can add Elf and Dwarf as class. Halflings lose, but I'm sure they don't mind spending their days tending to their gardens and having second breakfast instead of going on adventures ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification