Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7325982" data-attributes="member: 5890">I think it could go even below the triumvirate of fighter/rogue/mage.Let's face it - there are almost not examples of a fighter who only fights, or a rogue who never fights, and turning that into a class split introduces some bizarreness.Are you sneaky? Guess you have to fight with a light weapon! Are you wearing heavy armor? Guess you can't disarm traps!And below that... it's just really a choice of how you do your thing. You could easily skin a fighter with a bow as a blasty wizard or a rogue as a utility wizard etc. That's basically what 4e did. Every character class becomes a spell list and the line between classes is just what spells you can pick from.That said... I probably wouldn't want to do that. Having clear archetypes is a good idea. Having 12 classes to choose from when you make a starting character is a bad idea, especially if you muddy it further with backgrounds and some of those 12 classes subclassing off the bat, and some of those classes filling the same design space but with minor flavour changes etc. Older D&amp;D avoided this with attribute minimums and rolled stats: in essence you ended up with 1 or 2 choices for a rolled character. 3e avoided it more or less by making each class a straightforward archetype... mostly. 4e avoided it to some extent with roles: you typically picked a role first, a class second, and when you picked class you had one or two clearly differentiated choices. 5e just throws 12 classes at you, many of which have zero differentiating abilities at first level and tells you that you're not allowed to change later, so you'd better make your first choice a good one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 7325982, member: 5890"] I think it could go even below the triumvirate of fighter/rogue/mage. Let's face it - there are almost not examples of a fighter who [i]only[/i] fights, or a rogue who [i]never[/i] fights, and turning that into a class split introduces some bizarreness. Are you sneaky? Guess you have to fight with a light weapon! Are you wearing heavy armor? Guess you can't disarm traps! And below that... it's just really a choice of [i]how[/i] you do your thing. You could easily skin a fighter with a bow as a blasty wizard or a rogue as a utility wizard etc. That's basically what 4e did. Every character class becomes a spell list and the line between classes is just what spells you can pick from. That said... I probably wouldn't want to do that. Having clear archetypes is a good idea. Having 12 classes to choose from when you make a starting character is a bad idea, especially if you muddy it further with backgrounds and some of those 12 classes subclassing off the bat, and some of those classes filling the same design space but with minor flavour changes etc. Older D&D avoided this with attribute minimums and rolled stats: in essence you ended up with 1 or 2 choices for a rolled character. 3e avoided it more or less by making each class a straightforward archetype... mostly. 4e avoided it to some extent with roles: you typically picked a role first, a class second, and when you picked class you had one or two clearly differentiated choices. 5e just throws 12 classes at you, many of which have zero differentiating abilities at first level and tells you that you're not allowed to change later, so you'd better make your first choice a good one. [/QUOTE]

Verification