We talked about 'options bloat' as part of another thread. The March 14, 2012 7:30 AM post raises the issue and there are a few comments.
Then, on December 4, 2012, I thought that dragonchess had a really good observation.
BTW, I don't think Gary Gygax was a big fan of options bloat, based on the book.
"You wanna play a tribal cleric? here's the oracle." ... "You wanna play a tribal cleric? here's the oracle."Someone really wants to play a tribal cleric. ;)
Good points.
(Hmrph... stupid copy/pasted mistake...)
Well, at least it might have gotten into some people's mind ^_^
We talked about 'options bloat' as part of another thread. The March 14, 2012 7:30 AM post raises the issue and there are a few comments.
Then, on December 4, 2012, I thought that dragonchess had a really good observation.
BTW, I don't think Gary Gygax was a big fan of options bloat, based on the book.
And that's relevant ... how?
And that's relevant ... how?We talked about 'options bloat' as part of another thread. The March 14, 2012 7:30 AM post raises the issue and there are a few comments.
Then, on December 4, 2012, I thought that dragonchess had a really good observation.
BTW, I don't think Gary Gygax was a big fan of options bloat, based on the book.
The plethora of classes and races is at the heart of options bloat. As distinct from rules bloat
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I mean, why is Gygax's opinion on, well, anything relevant?
Magus is ONE type of Fighter/Wizard. There are so many other Ways to be a Fighter/Mage that the Magus spell list doesn't allow.
I don't mind the magus being there, but its really not for me-- so the complete lack of sanctioned prestige classes that flesh out additional options because everything is poured into base classes that are thin slivers of multi-class options is a little frustrating. . .
Also, while Paizo has done great with a lot of classes-- the Wizard stands out as still having very little reason to stay a Wizard which compounds the lack of PRC options. . . one ability every five levels that amounts to a bonus feat? Pretty uninspiring compared to what everyone else is getting.
After trying to make an unarmed fighter (that was a tetori in another life, and a brutal pugilist in another), the Brawler is absolutely necessary. Trying to make this class that rocks trips, grappling, and striking was a nightmare of min-maxing just to make it work at all. I like new classes because sometimes, you just can't make a certain class. And sometimes, it's just awesome. Like the Skald and the Bloodrager (which is not something that you could multiclass anyway).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit to being completely dumbfounded by anyone upset about more choices being made available. I am simply unable to follow the chain of thoughts that lead to such frustration. I can't even read such posts without the spirit of William Wallace screaming in my head.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I demand that from now on, if the community wants to keep any threads going for days at a time, they choose only those whose subjects/titles are correctly spelled.
If I have to see the title of this thread, with its "to" in place of "too" pop up on the feed one more time, I'm going to find the OP and tear HIS hair out. (I've already torn out my own.)
EDIT: Incidentally, I prefer classes and archetypes to PrCs. 3.5 was PrC hell, and most of them were the worst dreck imaginable. The great reduction of them is one of Pathfinder's most shining, brilliant, happy developments.
EDIT: Incidentally, I prefer classes and archetypes to PrCs. 3.5 was PrC hell, and most of them were the worst dreck imaginable. The great reduction of them is one of Pathfinder's most shining, brilliant, happy developments.
Yeah, now e have a pile of stinky archetypes and a pile of stinking prcs! Sturgeon's law is great like that.
Eehhh.... yeah I can see where someone can be sort of upset about new classes.
There is firstly, always the chance that one of these classes will snap balance. I know quite a few people who ban summoners outright. I can't say I disagree. Of course, everything is an option but that is a lousy argument and always has been. A bad rule is still a bad rule even if I can choose to not use it.
And I also worry about rules glut. It is a thing. The more rules, the more one has to wade througg to find the broken things... I just went over the skinwalkers to mark off what needs to be banned... and then there is the stigma. I bet some people will get to that line about banning and immediately feel some type of way. Like I am taking away a toy. Well I am. But its a dangerous toy covered in lead paint, and maybe it would be better if uncle paizo stopped giving you these sorts of toys...
So overall I like new classes, and I have confidence that they will be well done since this is an actual book. I like new options and feats and all of that.
But I also understand anyone being hesitant
Eehhh.... yeah I can see where someone can be sort of upset about new classes.
There is firstly, always the chance that one of these classes will snap balance.
The druid, cleric, and wizard already did that from day one. The barn door was left open, the horse has well and truly bolted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You wanna play a tribal cleric? here's the oracle." ... "You wanna play a tribal cleric? here's the oracle."Someone really wants to play a tribal cleric. ;)
Good points.
Yeah, it's important to remember that PCs don't wear tags on their chests that say 'Hello, My Class is CLERIC' on them. Your character doesn't know what a class is. He doesn't know he has one. It doesn't matter what class your character is mechanically, he can call himself whatever he wants.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Rather than creating a Fighter that has a nobility backstory and learns mounted combat to make what would essentially be a Knight, they make the Paladin or Cavalier. I think if you use your numbers correctly and apply enough imagination to your pc's backstory and personality (you ARE playing a role and creating a character after all), you should be able to turn a base class into whatever fine-tuned, archetypal hero you want. In fact, aside from the magic classes, I feel like you could get something close to a barbarian, paladin or ranger out of a fighter if some abilities and class skills were switched around and simplified, and rangers and rogues could almost be combined as well...
Sorry Ephesus, I think you may need to study PF's Core, Base, Alternate and Prestige Classes, as well as Archetypes and for that matter, Races a little closer.
I'm a card carrying Grognard, been playing for more than 30 years. Maybe you have been playing longer. I cannot agree with your opinions. It's less about "very specific aesthetics" or "oversimplified backstories" and more about in-game options and being able to tweak even those options, provided mechanically via archetypes and then tweaking that even further through roleplay. You seem to be suggesting a malady of uninteresting players being spoonfed cardboard, cookie-cutter ideas. I'm sure that happens but it certainly doesn't fit my demographic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm returning to RPGs after 20 years of not playing (ADD then, PF now), and am relearning a lot about the mechanics and rules, so bear with me. I think one reason they are coming out with all these PF expanded classes is that people often have a very specific aesthetic idea of what they want their PC to look like, accompanied by an oversimplified backstory. So rather than using their imagination and existing skills/feats to make their Rogue a dueling, swashbuckler type, Paizo just makes that a new class. No one has to develop their own PC's personality and physical appearance and make it unique. Rather than creating a Fighter that has a nobility backstory and learns mounted combat to make what would essentially be a Knight, they make the Paladin or Cavalier. I think if you use your numbers correctly and apply enough imagination to your pc's backstory and personality (you ARE playing a role and creating a character after all), you should be able to turn a base class into whatever fine-tuned, archetypal hero you want. In fact, aside from the magic classes, I feel like you could get something close to a barbarian, paladin or ranger out of a fighter if some abilities and class skills were switched around and simplified, and rangers and rogues could almost be combined as well. Does this make any sense? Semi un-related, I also heard they have a lot of classes that can accomplish the same things through different mechanisms so that your party isn't screwed if it's missing a certain class (like a dwarf or elf can trapspot because of race, whereas a rogue has it as a talent.)
The Cavaliar and Paladin are very different mechanically from a fighter, and your backstory will never allow them to do what those two do in the game. Having different classes means you are better able to represent your idea mechanically, and new classes has no affect on whether or not someone writes a backstory.
As for not being screwed that was done to not pigeon-hole someone into a class. With that aside a group of skilled players can get by with Class X anyway. Archetypes, which are probably what you are talking about are a nice addition to the game. More options are not a bad things. If someone does not like them they can just not use them. As an example I dont care for the gunslinger or cavalier, but I would not get rid of them, even if I could Their existence is not raining on my parade.
Most of those new classes sound like a lot of fun. The Slayer (I think that is what it was called, the Ranger/Rogue) sound fun, it is a concept that I have played a few times in the past.
If Magus could stack with Wizard levels then I would probably like it more. The new class book should describe how multi-classing interacts, because as noted many times throughout the forums, it can get kind of clunky. Granted, the clunkiness is not quite a bad as earlier editions of D&D, but it really does need to be reworked, and the Advanced Class Guide would be a good place to fix it.
Taking a class, especially a spellcaster class, at a higher level seems silly. Let's say that I am a level 19 fighter. It takes a crap-load of experience to take a single level of Wizard at level 20. The rules seem to indicate that multiclassing really sucks. But I guess if there are enough classes that have each niche covered (especially counting archetypes), they can drop the whole multiclassing thing altogether.
AD&D had you track XP per class. In theory that worked, but in play it greatly favored the multi-classed character, especially around levels 7-9. Now a multiclassed character tends to be kind of nerfed. There are some that are still pretty cool, especially if they share the same high attribute, but a Fighter 10/ Wizard 10 is not really equal to a level 20 character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* In my own experience, too many casters slows down gameplay by dragging out individual combat turns while at the same time promoting the 15-minute adventuring day.
I am pretty sure, by way of observing their class design since the APG, that Paizo has completely given up on preventing the 15 minute workday.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To fewer classes!! *glug glug glug*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We also need
…..and
….and
edit:
and.....
I'd much rather prefer having cool base classes than get multiclassapolooza.5
Reminds me of my last 3.X game I played. I was the frontline warrior, and we were going 3.5e Core Rules (whatever was in the SRD).
Played a Fighter / Barbarian / Rogue / Ranger / Commander / Psychic Warrior. The crazy thing is that it all made sense (even grabbing Psychic Warrior late in the game because of exposure to psionics, though on xp penalty because I had to catch up for 2 levels to be within 1 level of the rest).Had a nice big bag of tricks (tracking, rage, sneak attack, leadership buffs, psionic abilities), and an eclectic set of skills (I could play the survivalist, diplomat, knew plenty of languages, had perform oratory, and my athletic skills weren't bad).
Combat-wise I made myself (en)Large and was tripping (early levels) and then using Stand Still (later levels) to control the battlefield.
Kept up with the Wizard and Cleric on stage-time.
Dunno how I'd play that character in Pathfinder. I could likely dump Fighter, Barbarian and Rogue (since they were basically "more feat/damage/hitpoints/skills" sources; all things that were boosted in PF). Cavalier (or Bard archetype?) and Ranger, tossing in a psychic ability later (although higher ranger levels means spellcasting, might not even need that). Definitely simpler than before.
.
@Ephesus
If your experience comes from playing 2e/AD&D (stuff from the 90s), then you are right, there were a lot less core classes. In fact, a lot of the classes from 1e were culled and only brought back as tweaks.
It seemed like the design philosophy was to not really add any more classes than what was in the Player's Handbook, but instead bring out tweaks like the Kits found in the Complete and Skills & Powers books.
Pathfinder has taken a similar approach with Archetypes, if you are searching for familiar ground in this latest edition.
.
@Kolokotroni
Very accurate account of the facts and I agree with your opinions on the matter.
I always liked that 3e opened up mult-classing; it let me treat the classes more like a toolbox for ideas to create a concept, rather than playing a static toon pre-built for me (like a video game).
It was a step in the direction of world emulation, the narrative could feel a bit less gamist.
However, the two main methods of "mixing it up" had serious flaws. Prestige classes (while neat at adding abilities or patching combos) really took too long, and felt "locked in" to 5 or 10 level spreads. Multiclassing core classes brought up the issue of getting a bunch of stuff designed for early levels (mixing up spellcasting was the worst). At least with my multiclass fighter above there, +damage and +attack all kind of stacked together well enough and 3e had a lack of "super powers" for a lot of non-caster classes (try playing 3e Fighter again, guh).
.
More base classes the better, I say.
We also need
a shifter type class.
a Marshal type class .
a Warlock type of class. A blaster that can blast from level 1.
a maker/Engineer/Artificer/Tinker class
a spontaneous casting Druid type of class.
a rogue type of class without sneak attack, with trapfinding and with the ability to kill stuff.
full BAB class, we also need a full BAB class with the same spell progression as the ranger and, Paladin. (Lets' hope the bloodrager is giving us this)
A dragon shaman kind of a class.
and and Psionics. Lots of Psionics. …..and
a Cavalier without the mount or should say: A fighter with 4 skills per level and some cool abilities. A bit like the samurai without a mount. ….and
all classes with a touch bard. Everything goes better with bard ;) edit:
and.....
we most definitely need a mundane/no spells full BAB class that is self-sufficient.
I was being serious when I toasted to fewer classes :)
The class bloat gives me anxiety that I won't try to justify or explain, it just does, I'm a weirdo. The announcement of this new book ACG or whatever had me pulling those 3.5 core book re-releases off the shelf in the game store and stroking my chin. But some of your picks are very good and reasonable and wouldn't distress me like these hybrids do.
We also need
a shifter type class.
a Marshal type class .
a Warlock type of class. A blaster that can blast from level 1.
a maker/Engineer/Artificer/Tinker class
a spontaneous casting Druid type of class.
a rogue type of class without sneak attack, with trapfinding and with the ability to kill stuff.
full BAB class, we also need a full BAB class with the same spell progression as the ranger and, Paladin. (Lets' hope the bloodrager is giving us this)
A dragon shaman kind of a class.
and and Psionics. Lots of Psionics. …..and
a Cavalier without the mount or should say: A fighter with 4 skills per level and some cool abilities. A bit like the samurai without a mount. ….and
all classes with a touch bard. Everything goes better with bard ;) edit:
and.....
we most definitely need a mundane/no spells full BAB class that is self-sufficient.
and
We need a monk that does as much damage as martials, the skills of a rogue, and mystical abilities on par with casters.
We also need
a shifter type class.
a Marshal type class .
a Warlock type of class. A blaster that can blast from level 1.
a maker/Engineer/Artificer/Tinker class
a spontaneous casting Druid type of class.
a rogue type of class without sneak attack, with trapfinding and with the ability to kill stuff.
full BAB class, we also need a full BAB class with the same spell progression as the ranger and, Paladin. (Lets' hope the bloodrager is giving us this)
A dragon shaman kind of a class.
and and Psionics. Lots of Psionics. …..and
a Cavalier without the mount or should say: A fighter with 4 skills per level and some cool abilities. A bit like the samurai without a mount. ….and
all classes with a touch bard. Everything goes better with bard ;) edit:
and.....
we most definitely need a mundane/no spells full BAB class that is self-sufficient. I was being serious when I toasted to fewer classes :)
The class bloat gives me anxiety that I won't try to justify or explain, it just does, I'm a weirdo. The announcement of this new book ACG or whatever had me pulling those 3.5 core book re-releases off the shelf in the game store and stroking my chin. But some of your picks are very good and reasonable and wouldn't distress me like these hybrids do.
Just use Dreamscarred Press' Psionics, since its going to be the only kind that is actually backwards compatible (also extremely well done, even if I do still want have my Psicrytal using Control Body to move me for full physical and full mental actions... alas.)
@Grimmy: I personally don’t mind more classes. That said I agree that there are classes in the new book I find redundant or at least not to my taste.
I think the Swashbuckler and Warpriest are needed. People want to play some sort of Paladin without the need of being LG or have a code of conduct, at least not the Paladin’s code of conduct.
People have tried for years to play a Swashbuckler but the current mechanics really don’t let them especially not if they can’t use agile weapon and the Dervish dance feat. Both that are not core.
We need a full BAB class that got 4/9 casting. Hopefully the Bloodrager is just that.
The choice to include the Brawler was unexpected but a good one. The monk lobby is loud and they (and other people) have asked for a class with less fluff that can deal a great deal of damage and still use unarmed attacks and not being MAD. The Brawler can use armor and is probably less MAD. At the same time the Devs are aware of there are also a lot of people that actually like the current monk and they want to keep the fluff. The only solution is giving the monk lobby what they want but using a different name, The Brawler.
I haven’t seen any demand for the Arcanist, but the class will be very useful for new gamers, for GMs and for gaming groups like ours were people don’t like to play full arcane casters. This new class could also be perfect if you want to play a conjurer or even blaster. Perhaps the Arcanist can even dabble as the new Warlock.
The last 5 classes doesn't really appeal to me.
Slayer? True there is a demand to be able to play an assassin type of character without being evil, although I think that can actually be done if you play a Ninja.
Hunter/pet master is a classic D&D role that hasn’t really been filled perfectly. Druid has too much spells and wild shape. Ranger’s pet is to weak and the class has too much focus on the Ranger as the main attacker. The Summoner is too weird. That said, I still think this could have been fixed using archetypes.
Investigator, Shaman, Skald I really don’t see a need for these classes even though people have been talking about a Shaman for a long time. Also the current mechanics doesn't really let you play a Bard-Barbarian, but sadly it seems to be more of a rager and less of a bard. The Investigator? I like the idea, but dislike sneak attack. Funny enough, the Investigator is the kind of characters really appeal to me, so perhaps I’m in for a surprise.
Some of the new classes, like Swashbuckler and Warpriest, are really necessary. Others feel a bit bland.
I would have like a new trap expert class that can actually fight. Well, we have the urban ranger or a multi-classed fighter with one level rogue so I guess maybe we don’t need one. Perhaps both the slayer and the Investigator can replace the rogue.
It would really have been nice to have a shifter class, but perhaps we get that in another book.
That's good food for thought zark. Everything you say really does make sense.
I returned to the hobby after a long hiatus, and when the current edition of dnd wasn't a game I could recognize, I was happy to discover pathfinder. My tastes are heavily influenced by sentimentality and nostalgia.
I've grown to love the crunchiness, it adds a whole new dimension to the game that wasn't there when I was a kid. I wouldn't want to go back to a retro clone now, but if pathfinder core hadn't shown it's heritage from the game I grew up on, I never would have got hooked like I did.
I know it shouldn't really matter what it says on the character sheet but for some reason it does to me. I've tried to lighten up and get over it but I can't.
I recognize that there are builds and concepts that can't be achieved with the old stand-by classes though, at least not without going back to the drawing board, and it's clear that's not going to happen. You hit some of those on the head.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not nor will it ever be a issue with myself or my gaming group. As we can tailor to allow which classes we want to use. It would be a truly be a issue or valid complaint if imo if somehow we would ne forced to use all the classes. No one is forcing anyone to use let alone buy more new material. As well imo Im assuming enough fans want more new options for everything. Otherwise why publish something that no one is asking for. Paizo is a business not a charity or a non-profit organization. Gamers forget that sometimes. Im getting tired of seeing Lovecraft material in the Bestiary. Enough fans want it plus there is enough non-Lovecraft material. Im not going to tell them to stop publishing Bestiaries. Maybe reduce the frequency of releases if possible.
Its not nor will it ever be a issue with myself or my gaming group. As we can tailor to allow which classes we want to use. It would be a truly be a issue or valid complaint if imo if somehow we would ne forced to use all the classes. No one is forcing anyone to use let alone buy more new material. As well imo Im assuming enough fans want more new options for everything. Otherwise why publish something that no one is asking for. Paizo is a business not a charity or a non-profit organization. Gamers forget that sometimes. Im getting tired of seeing Lovecraft material in the Bestiary. Enough fans want it plus there is enough non-Lovecraft material. Im not going to tell them to stop publishing Bestiaries. Maybe reduce the frequency of releases if possible.
Exactly!
Print them all, let the individual tables sort it out.
I don't mind the new classes. Usually, I'm GM'ing, but I'm now fortunate enough to be playing two characters and neither of them are from the main book(a summoner and a hedge witch). On the other hand, I'm also the sort of person who isn't very fond of the main races either; give me a sylph or a kitsune any day, please. Gnomes are cool, but just not enough for me.
On the other hand, I can say that some of the classes could be more effectively made into a class alternative... Mostly the Asian counterparts. These classes need to exist, but probably don't need to be a sole class. If we're going to go that far with all of them then why is the "White Haired Witch" just an alternative rather than a full class of its own?
Still, I like the changes the Summoner (which could only be done before by combining cleric with sorcerer or wizard), the Oracle and the others give you instead of being just a run of the mill cleric or wizard. Heck, the moment sorcerer appeared in 3.5 I fell in love, so maybe I'm not the one to talk here.
In general, I am right on board and excited to see what the new classes will be though. We all have classes we prefer playing anyway... just find the five that you like the most and stick with those, giving the others a quick review when making a new character, in case a different one suddenly catches your fancy!
Paizo uses more full Base Classes and Archetypes rather than the multitude of Prestige Classes that swamped D&D 3/3.5, because 3/.5 MISused PrCs because they realized they sold books, but Paizo is using Prestige Classes in the way that they were actually concieved of and intended.
Prestige Classes were meant to represent the skills and abilities learned by/granted to members of prestigious groups (hence the name Prestige Class), not as generic sets of new abilities to multiclass into. Harper Scout, Red Wizard of Thay, Knight Protector of the Great Kingdom, and Bladesinger were examples of good Prestige Classes: special groups whose members must earn admittance. "Master of Chains" was an example of a poor PrC: just a collection of special abilities based on using spiked chains. Paths of Prestige was a very well-done book of PrCs; you will notice that they were all groups and organizations, not just random sets of cool powers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly!Print them all, let the individual tables sort it out.
What does bother me with these threads is that it posters who start them imply that their being forced to use anything and everything at a gaming table. Unless someone phyically threathens to beat a DM up or hold him at gunpoint its a non-issue. Almost as bad as posters complaining about the amount of material Paizo publishes. Why would a rpg company offering steady support of new product be viewed as a bad thing. Most rpg companies would imo kill to be able to publish the amount that Paizo can. Its like going to Dunkin Donuts and complaining about the selection of donuts being offered.
Paizo uses more full Base Classes and Archetypes rather than the multitude of Prestige Classes that swamped D&D 3/3.5, because 3/.5 MISused PrCs because they realized they sold books, but Paizo is using Prestige Classes in the way that they were actually concieved of and intended.
Prestige Classes were meant to represent the skills and abilities learned by/granted to members of prestigious groups (hence the name Prestige Class), not as generic sets of new abilities to multiclass into. Harper Scout, Red Wizard of Thay, Knight Protector of the Great Kingdom, and Bladesinger were examples of good Prestige Classes: special groups whose members must earn admittance. "Master of Chains" was an example of a poor PrC: just a collection of special abilities based on using spiked chains. Paths of Prestige was a very well-done book of PrCs; you will notice that they were all groups and organizations, not just random sets of cool powers.
All classes are just collections of abilities.
Paths of Prestige was a very well-done book of PrCs;
YMMV, I thought it was a nail in the coffin myself.
Its like going to Dunkin Donuts and complaining about the selection of donuts being offered.
I know a guy who does that. If a place serves even one thing he doesn't like he despises it. In an entirely different way, I know people who think you should always play RAW and make every option available.
No. All classes are collections of abilities. Some are just collections of abilities.All classes are just collections of abilities.
No, all classes are just collections of abilities. They are mechanical constructs used in tandem with other game elements to realize a character concept.
The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character. The default flavor (including name) can be modified, mutated, adjusted, or simply replaced.
Paizo uses more full Base Classes and Archetypes rather than the multitude of Prestige Classes that swamped D&D 3/3.5, because 3/.5 MISused PrCs because they realized they sold books, but Paizo is using Prestige Classes in the way that they were actually concieved of and intended.
Prestige Classes were meant to represent the skills and abilities learned by/granted to members of prestigious groups (hence the name Prestige Class), not as generic sets of new abilities to multiclass into. Harper Scout, Red Wizard of Thay, Knight Protector of the Great Kingdom, and Bladesinger were examples of good Prestige Classes: special groups whose members must earn admittance. "Master of Chains" was an example of a poor PrC: just a collection of special abilities based on using spiked chains. Paths of Prestige was a very well-done book of PrCs; you will notice that they were all groups and organizations, not just random sets of cool powers.
I can agree with this, mainly because I'd like to see PrCs be more setting specific.
One interesting thing I've seen was 3-5 level prestige classes that represents some kind of minor focus.
Would the game be just as good if all the flavor was removed?
Yes. It would actually be better, as people would not feel compelled to play stereotypes, because they wouldn't exist. No more 'well, I'm a (race) (class), so I have to act like THIS' like it's genetically encoded.
Yes, flavor matters. But the only flavor that matters is what the player gives his character and what the GM gives his world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would the game be just as good if all the flavor was removed? Strictly mechanics, not even names beyond Class 1, Ability 1, Feat 3, etc. Flavor matters.
Flavor matters yes, but personal freedom does too. I also don't pay for a pile of fluff for a game, I buy a book. When I play a game I want to create and play with a group of friends.
Hopefully more choices doesn't complicate things and just gives everyone a better chance to find something they enjoy and does what they want without jumping through hoops.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. All classes are collections of abilities. Some are just collections of abilities.All classes are just collections of abilities.
No, all classes are just collections of abilities. They are mechanical constructs used in tandem with other game elements to realize a character concept.
The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character. The default flavor (including name) can be modified, mutated, adjusted, or simply replaced.
I wholeheartedy disagree. It is not "the only flavor that matters." Otherwise the entire concept of classes is meaningless. Classes are not just collections of mechanical abilities; they have story built into them.
I despise game elements that are merely collections of rules mechanics with no story or thematic justification. Game mechanics are there to support the thematic role of a class.