Lance Treiber
Educated
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 65
I'm at a stage on my project where I'm thinking about class design. This is what I'm struggling with:
Question 1: Should classes be stereotypical, or should they jump at you out of nowhere?
Stereotypical design, examples:
- arcane/elementalist mage
- generalist mage with utility spells
Unrecognizable design, examples:
- Gold mage, draws power from the amount of hoarded gold he's got in his vault. Crippling gold addiction: he must constantly increase hoarded gold or lose powers.
- Tattoo mage, prepares spells by tattooing them on his skin, and can materialize his tattoos. E.g. he tattooed a dagger on his hand, then a this dagger flies out at will, consuming the tattoo.
- Revision mage, can rewind time on self or allies. When dealt a non-lethal blow, can make in unhappen. Can only be killed by poison or an annihilating explosion. Has weak offense. Constantly rewinds time until enemy critically misses. Sounds exasperating? It's just an idea, don't worry about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stereotypical:
- Warlock. Summons undeads or demons, whatever.
Unrecognizable:
- Thanatonauts have to voluntarily die to "prepare spells". While dead, make pacts with ghosts/spirits that provide him powers. If body is destroyed while dead, there's no coming back. Can also be robbed while dead. Has to hide himself to commit suicide.
These ideas are just examples, but they could be iterated on until they become playable and interesting to play. Maybe.
Or would you rather play stuff you already know?
Or would you rather modify recognizable classes to make them fresh and original?
Question 2: If stereotypical is better, should they have familiar names?
E.g.:
- "warrior" vs "blade-bound"
- "rogue" vs "shadow"
- "priest" vs "bone mage": mends wounds by drawing health from disposable bones he carries with himself, but basically a recognizable priest stereotype.
Having familiar class and spell names at the start of the game can set you at ease, putting you into familiar territory. On the other hand, it reeks of boredom if you've been playing "mages and warriors" for 20 years.
Make unfamiliar names and the player may go "this is like when Sawyer changed vampire to fampyr".
Please vote, but also leave comments as to WHY this or that?
Question 1: Should classes be stereotypical, or should they jump at you out of nowhere?
Stereotypical design, examples:
- arcane/elementalist mage
- generalist mage with utility spells
Unrecognizable design, examples:
- Gold mage, draws power from the amount of hoarded gold he's got in his vault. Crippling gold addiction: he must constantly increase hoarded gold or lose powers.
- Tattoo mage, prepares spells by tattooing them on his skin, and can materialize his tattoos. E.g. he tattooed a dagger on his hand, then a this dagger flies out at will, consuming the tattoo.
- Revision mage, can rewind time on self or allies. When dealt a non-lethal blow, can make in unhappen. Can only be killed by poison or an annihilating explosion. Has weak offense. Constantly rewinds time until enemy critically misses. Sounds exasperating? It's just an idea, don't worry about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stereotypical:
- Warlock. Summons undeads or demons, whatever.
Unrecognizable:
- Thanatonauts have to voluntarily die to "prepare spells". While dead, make pacts with ghosts/spirits that provide him powers. If body is destroyed while dead, there's no coming back. Can also be robbed while dead. Has to hide himself to commit suicide.
These ideas are just examples, but they could be iterated on until they become playable and interesting to play. Maybe.
Or would you rather play stuff you already know?
Or would you rather modify recognizable classes to make them fresh and original?
Question 2: If stereotypical is better, should they have familiar names?
E.g.:
- "warrior" vs "blade-bound"
- "rogue" vs "shadow"
- "priest" vs "bone mage": mends wounds by drawing health from disposable bones he carries with himself, but basically a recognizable priest stereotype.
Having familiar class and spell names at the start of the game can set you at ease, putting you into familiar territory. On the other hand, it reeks of boredom if you've been playing "mages and warriors" for 20 years.
Make unfamiliar names and the player may go "this is like when Sawyer changed vampire to fampyr".
Please vote, but also leave comments as to WHY this or that?