Latest revision as of 01:36, 30 April 2012

UNDER DEVELOPMENT
	This page is currently under development, and as such is somewhat in limbo regarding playtest viability. It is not recommended that information on this page be used or considered for playtesting until it has reached a more stable revision.

This page is still in its infancy. Brainstorming for now, essentially, but a basic framework is forthcoming...

Basics

Artisan specials are doing to be very tightly designed. Because of this, they will almost all be very low-costed, in terms of XP. Gaining versatility as an artisan will be more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding because of the impact of a more versatile artisan.

I have a feeling, based upon our experiences with Warrior disciplines, that all non-Lorist roles are going to be significantly more narrow in scope. I think this accurately reflects what we're expecting Journey play to look like: the Lorist is the jack-of-all-trades, capable of doing anything and filling any role, while the remaining roles are significantly more focused and specialized.

For artisans, in particular, their disciplines will all wind up looking incredibly similar. In fact it may be possible to summarize their specials in just a few basic discipline templates, with the player filling in the necessary details.

I am worried that this will wind up being boring to play. I am not looking to design something uninteresting, here... I want players to want to play artisans. I don't want them to be the D&D cleric, where you have to have one or else you're screwed: I want a player to make the conscious decision of "I want to play an artisan," and have that choice be more rewarding than just... a singular list.

The Metagame

Really the complexities of this become apparent with the crafting grid.

I really think we're going to have a problem here, where the grid becomes way super important and non-grid crafting just can't compare. But I guess we'll see.