I don't think class primes make much sense. I much prefer race based primes.
I also think it's best to have few broad archetypes. Fighter, magic-user, ???. The primes determine the sub-archetype.
Fighter with dex and cha is a swashbuckler, with dex and int is a fencer, with str and con a barbarian and so on.
I also allow casters to pick a casting attribute Int/Wis/Cha. As Oracle ans Seeress make sense Wis or Cha, Witches make sense under any of the three.
Probably nothing you wanted to hear... Hmmm, also wondering now if by Prime you meant Castle's & Crusades or OD&D Prime. If the latter, the above will not make much sense.
No, we're on the same wavelength, and thanks for the feedback.
I agree with a prime and secondary stats. For example, Strength and Wisdom might be required for the Captain (also needs to be wise, so he can understand what inspires his men). What I am generally opposed to is requiring high stats in order to play the archetype. In my mind, a 9 should be sufficient (it simply means you're not terribly good at performing that role)
As for a fencer needing strength, i'm not entirely convinced. My alternative might be to give him a damage bonus while employing his foil, based on his dexterity.
I'm going to post my attribute definitions, including the Charisma description, shortly.
@Daniel: You're correct thanks for noticing that (incidentally, I try to use both genders, but both sexes - druid and druidess - are assumed in the categorization)
@TRBA: good, good. Yes, I completely forgot the Bard! I've got chavalier, but of course, that isn't the same as the cavalier! I assumed pirate under piratess, I wonder if trying to use different genders is confusing. Blackguard .. i'm not familiar with that one, tell me more ...
@Paladin: Sorry, I missed the piratess. I didn't see it.
Blackguard: The traditional meaning is a scoundrel; old time politicians used to call each other "blackguards" on a regular basis. It is also a 3.Xe prestige class--pretty much an anti-paladin.
I'm gonna drop Blackguard under Strength. Not sure if it applies or not, I really need to explain how I see the characteristics, perhaps that will lend some perspective on why I am putting archetypes where I am.
Here is the beginnings of my draft fantasy character archetypes class listing, based on the related prime attribute for each class.
I don't think class primes make much sense. I much prefer race based primes.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's best to have few broad archetypes. Fighter, magic-user, ???. The primes determine the sub-archetype.
Fighter with dex and cha is a swashbuckler, with dex and int is a fencer, with str and con a barbarian and so on.
I also allow casters to pick a casting attribute Int/Wis/Cha. As Oracle ans Seeress make sense Wis or Cha, Witches make sense under any of the three.
Probably nothing you wanted to hear... Hmmm, also wondering now if by Prime you meant Castle's & Crusades or OD&D Prime. If the latter, the above will not make much sense.
No, we're on the same wavelength, and thanks for the feedback.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a prime and secondary stats. For example, Strength and Wisdom might be required for the Captain (also needs to be wise, so he can understand what inspires his men). What I am generally opposed to is requiring high stats in order to play the archetype. In my mind, a 9 should be sufficient (it simply means you're not terribly good at performing that role)
As for a fencer needing strength, i'm not entirely convinced. My alternative might be to give him a damage bonus while employing his foil, based on his dexterity.
I'm going to post my attribute definitions, including the Charisma description, shortly.
You've got druidess twice under wisdom. (Sorry I have nothing more constructive.)
ReplyDeleteBard? Skald? Cavalier? Knight? Pirate? Elementalist? Blackguard?
ReplyDelete@Daniel: You're correct thanks for noticing that (incidentally, I try to use both genders, but both sexes - druid and druidess - are assumed in the categorization)
ReplyDelete@TRBA: good, good. Yes, I completely forgot the Bard! I've got chavalier, but of course, that isn't the same as the cavalier! I assumed pirate under piratess, I wonder if trying to use different genders is confusing. Blackguard .. i'm not familiar with that one, tell me more ...
Hmmm. I always made a distinction between Cavaliers (gallant knights) and Chavaliers (foppish lightswordsmen).
ReplyDeleteIs that an apt distinction, or hairsplitting?
@Paladin: Sorry, I missed the piratess. I didn't see it.
ReplyDeleteBlackguard: The traditional meaning is a scoundrel; old time politicians used to call each other "blackguards" on a regular basis. It is also a 3.Xe prestige class--pretty much an anti-paladin.
I'm gonna drop Blackguard under Strength. Not sure if it applies or not, I really need to explain how I see the characteristics, perhaps that will lend some perspective on why I am putting archetypes where I am.
ReplyDelete