I'm cool with an overarching archetype and core class for each of the six stats (so far there's only four). The optional classes work for me when major exchanges of power occur, like extra restrictions and expectations in exchange for nifty abilities, and that they remain optional. They give a helpful template to create other setting archetypal concepts that mesh better than the optional offering.

Not every campaign can justify a paladin, illusionist, or bard. But knowing what was traded for what gives an idea on how to make one's own setting relevant specialists. The problem was many people either never tried to make their own classes, or those who did hated the bennies for penalties exchange and just wanted more bennies.

(I need to create core classes for both CON & CHA. I'm thinking Laborer and Organizer. Now I should create 5e archetypes for subclasses...)

Quote from: Opaopajr;861828I'm cool with an overarching archetype and core class for each of the six stats (so far there's only four).

A local heartbreaker kinda sorta did this with Rangers (CON, being hardy  survivors and all) and Bards (CHA).

There doesn't need a CON Archetype, simply because every one of them need CON to survive.  But I would agree that Bard is definitely CHA.

Nah, I still disagree with CON not having one. Everyone needs all the stats, at least at 3 pts of each. I think it's just not a typical "adventuring!" concept.

I'm thinking Laborer as the core CON class, with emphases on professional level labor, like shepherd, farmer, or clerk. Be it paperwork or physical labor, the point is endurance. They are the backbone of civilization's plodding progress.

And I think Bards work fine as a specialist Rogue. They traded quite a bit of thief stuff, and took on several social requirements, for the the benefits of high sociability as an adventuring platform. They gotta see the world and mix it up from high and low, and then get out of any troubles they make alive through deft application of entertaining performance, sleight of hand, and a smile. That's more DEX to me than CHA, even though their CHA smile greases their escapes.

No, I see CHA as more organizational functionaries. Storytellers, wise elders, politicians, gossips, business managers, agitators, those are all varieties of CHA to me. Again they have little reason to "adventure!" as they are often terribly needed as the coordinational cerebellum for the body politic. They sway the herd, pack, mob, whatever, to reach that 11% tipping point where the group decides to change course en masse.

Hmm, the Laborer and the Leader/Organizer. Does the game really need pencil pushers and politicians in the dungeon?... Yes, yes it does. They could cause so much internecine damage among the sentient mosters!

"He is hoarding more treasure than you, you know that, right? And he's not even putting it to good use, like investing it in arms, more fighters, or even extra food. Just sitting on it like a pillow. *tsk*

"Here's my secretary's breakdown of your profits lost over the past year through your so-called 'peace'. Don't you feel entitled to your fair share? I mean the whole second floor could use your expansive vision!"

The Bard, to me, is the party 'face' the one that does all the talking, negotiating and charming, collecting stories and knowledge, and imparting to all who would hear them, everything else they do, is in a supportive role, their main focus is their personality, which to me, is Charisma.

This is why I say that Bard works for CHA.  You're welcome to disagree, but I just wanted to explain my choice.

Happy Gaming.

Quote from: Opaopajr;861867Nah, I still disagree with CON not having one. Everyone needs all the stats, at least at 3 pts of each. I think it's just not a typical "adventuring!" concept.

I'm thinking Laborer as the core CON class, with emphases on professional level labor, like shepherd, farmer, or clerk. Be it paperwork or physical labor, the point is endurance. They are the backbone of civilization's plodding progress.

Or an oarsman, if the game-world has oared galleys. Stevedores and other dockworkers, too.

Quote from: Kiero;861908Or an oarsman, if the game-world has oared galleys. Stevedores and other dockworkers, too.

For that matter any "outdoorsman" archetype is probably best fitted in the CON class. Yeah I said ranger.

Barbarians should be the CON representative as they are supposed to be the armourless battlers and you need good CON to back that up.

As it stands.
Fighter = STR
Cleric = WIS
Wizard = INT
Rogue = DEX

Bard = CHA
Druid = WIS
Barbarian = CON (kinda despite saying STR is the primary)
Warlock = CHA
Sorcerer = CHA

Quote from: Bren;861213Applauding.

Apparently you missed that memo.

Indeed.

There was one bright moment about all that.  I sent the GM an Email after I more or less stormed out of the game, pointing out what an utter fail that game was. I was somewhat embarrassed by it, honestly, since I worried I might seem like a bitter whiner, but I heard later from a mutual acquaintance that he took my advice to heart and changed his gaming style, at least somewhat.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;859971This came up in a thread on another forum when they were discussing players who chafe at character creation restrictions that are put in place for thematic reasons:



This really leaped out at me because I'd noticed something similar. Does this match anyone else's experiences?

Yup, it absolutely does.

Player A: "Lets play D&D?"
Player B: "Sure."
Player A: "Here is the character generation rules."
Player B: "Why can I not play a an Evolved Clam who is a Policewoman from the year 1280 BC armed with a Tetraquad Laser? Why god Why!?!?!"
Player A: We can play Rifts next week...

Quote from: Omega;863114Player B: "Why can I not play a an Evolved Clam who is a Policewoman from the year 1280 BC armed with a Tetraquad Laser? Why god Why!?!?!"

In my DCC campaign, a character like this would be considered inconspicuous.

Of course in that campaign you wouldn't get to choose any of this, almost all character generation would be by random determination. You don't get to pick what kind of a freak you are.

Quote from: RPGPundit;863732In my DCC campaign, a character like this would be considered inconspicuous.

Of course in that campaign you wouldn't get to choose any of this, almost all character generation would be by random determination. You don't get to pick what kind of a freak you are.

omg u r deprotagonizing the clam

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;863774omg u r deprotagonizing the clam

2 minute minor penalty. In the box.

Unless this made anybody bleed?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;863774omg u r deprotagonizing the clam

That sounds cooler than a mere evolved clam...