PDA

View Full Version : Base Classes that make no sense



dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-19, 07:24 AM
What are your opinions on the meaningfulness of the base classes in the PH? Some are fine but others, like the ranger (wilderness characters are allright, but why the supernatural powers? Isn't the scout a more logical core wilderness character?), the barbarian (all "primitive" warriors are raging Conan-types?) and the monk (Shaolin martial artist as a base archetype??) seem slightly silly to me. But that's just me I guess.

My question: What do you think? Which base classes are justifiable as base archetypes and which ones should really be PrCs? Would you add any classes if you were a WotC-game designer?

Hannes
2007-01-19, 07:29 AM
For Pete's sake, there clearly aren't enough base classes...

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 07:34 AM
I think there are a lot of mistaken assumptions about what base classes are.

Basically, they're collections of abilities. Like feat chains, except that you have to take them until the end or start new ones. They are NOT particular archetypes. Some of them are incredibly generic (Fighter, Rogue), whereas others are very narrow and could easily be represented by other classes (Barbarian could be a feat chain for the fighter; Ranger could be Fighter/Druid; Paladin could so easily be Fighter/Cleric).

They're just collections of abilities. That's all. There's no criteria for how specific or general they can or should be.

Altair_the_Vexed
2007-01-19, 07:37 AM
EDIT: What Bears said, too!

In my day [cue old-school gamer blog] we had only four classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief. There were no Feats or Skills to make your Thief different to anyone else's - it all came down to role-playing and equipment. Count yourself lucky that the PHB has so many to choose from!

I think that the d20 modern system of "classes" by Ability speciality may be the way forward - with bolt-on customisation through Feats to replicate the special abilities of classes, you can allow far more variation without ever having to resort to dozens of "core" classes.

Ah - except that would require a lot of thought and work on the part of a gaming group. Obviously that would be impossible. :biggrin:

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 07:38 AM
Ah, ah! Don't forget the "Elf" class!

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-19, 08:02 AM
I agree with Altair. Ultra-generic classes with endless customizability is probably the way to go.

paigeoliver
2007-01-19, 08:12 AM
Bah, in my day we only had 3 classes, Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and Clerics. Those pansy elven characters couldn't rise past 4th level and magic-users were to be feared because they could cast fireball at 3rd level.

If they ever lived that long.


In my day [cue old-school gamer blog] we had only four classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief. There were no Feats or Skills to make your Thief different to anyone else's - it all came down to role-playing and equipment. Count yourself lucky that the PHB has so many to choose from!

I think that the d20 modern system of "classes" by Ability speciality may be the way forward - with bolt-on customisation through Feats to replicate the special abilities of classes, you can allow far more variation without ever having to resort to dozens of "core" classes.

Ah - except that would require a lot of thought and work on the part of a gaming group. Obviously that would be impossible. :biggrin:

Theodoxus
2007-01-19, 08:13 AM
They did that, in a way, with the Generic classes in the UA. I don't know about modern, so I don't know how close that is to the Generics - but with only three 'base' classes and tons of feats to optimize with, i enjoy it more than every book adding another set of unique abilities to a game glutted with unique abilities.

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-19, 08:17 AM
They did that, in a way, with the Generic classes in the UA. I don't know about modern, so I don't know how close that is to the Generics - but with only three 'base' classes and tons of feats to optimize with, i enjoy it more than every book adding another set of unique abilities to a game glutted with unique abilities.Except there weren't "tons" of feats, unfortunately. At least not in the UA.

Altair_the_Vexed
2007-01-19, 08:32 AM
Here's a worked example (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=397683) of d20 modern converted to Fantasy gaming.

Amon Star
2007-01-19, 08:34 AM
What are your opinions on the meaningfulness of the base classes in the PH? Some are fine but others, like the ranger (wilderness characters are allright, but why the supernatural powers? Isn't the scout a more logical core wilderness character?), the barbarian (all "primitive" warriors are raging Conan-types?) and the monk (Shaolin martial artist as a base archetype??) seem slightly silly to me. But that's just me I guess.

My question: What do you think? Which base classes are justifiable as base archetypes and which ones should really be PrCs? Would you add any classes if you were a WotC-game designer?

Agree completely with you about Ranger. Alot of what they can do is because of holdovers from earlier editions and things that don't fit all settings. For example, in Forgetten Realms ranger are like that. In mine I use the Prestige Ranger from UA and use Wilderness Rogue as a base class.

I agree with you that all primitives shouldn't be ragers. However, I have no mechanical problem with the Barbarian class. So I changed the flavour by changing the name to Berserker and removing the illiteracy and "primitive" status, instead making them warriors that are possessed by battle-spirits.

I have no problem with monks as I base class. Many Shaolins were trained from birth. However, in many settings the flavour just doesn't sit well with me, as there is no longical reason they would come about. Or if they did, why would they use Nunchaku when rice doesn't exist in that world. If they evolved in a Western culture surely Flail would be better?

The base class that really bugs me, however, is Bard. Little things about it gets to me. For example, they're Arcane Casters, yet can heal. What's with that? Also, culturally, what do they represents. Medival wandering troubadours, Celtic Lorekeepers, or something else?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 08:42 AM
In response to "classes are just collections of abilities". They aren't. A class is a shorthand way of telling the world about your character. We know roughly what a Fighter, a Ranger, a Druid or a Cleric will look like.

"Generic classes plus customisation" is - IMO - the worst of all possible worlds. You have the pointless arbitrary nature of a class-and-level system, with none of the benefits of an archetypal character base.

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-19, 08:43 AM
Amon Star, I agree about the bard. They are magic users but still almost universlly considered scoundrels. I really enjoy the notion of a more "primal" spellcaster (that's what I think that bards should be), but why the trickster-thing?

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-19, 08:45 AM
Dan_Hemmens: I think I agree with you to. Perhaps it should be either no classes or many classes.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 09:07 AM
In response to "classes are just collections of abilities". They aren't. A class is a shorthand way of telling the world about your character. We know roughly what a Fighter, a Ranger, a Druid or a Cleric will look like.

No, it's not.

Some classes are more specific, because their collections of abilities are more specific, than others. You know what a character with a certain ability set will look like. That doesn't make classes anything more than collections of abilities.
You can't tell me what my fighter will look like. All you know is that he'll have a lot of feats.

Orzel
2007-01-19, 09:13 AM
It's less that the base classes make no sense and more that they only make sense in certain settings.

In the setting I'm currently playing in, classes are "levels" of "education". Because of this feature heavy classes like rangers, bard druids, paladins, and monks make lttle sense. Most of the features of these classes were stripped of and "3.5 rangerized" (givens styles). The class would keep the "required courses" and have options on what electives they want. Rangers, for example, keeped FEs, evasion, and their wilderness features (all buffed up). Rangers then had ranged, TWF, animal companions, rogue feats, and spellcasting as electives and chose any 3.

This feels like a good way to make classes fit into more settings. Each class keeps their main features and then choose their tweaking options. DMs can add and delete options as they wish. Players can make sensable characters. WoTC can srew out books with additional option for money. Everyone wins. "Generic classes plus customisation" is boring. You'll lose the archtypes and gain nothing in return mentally.

Ramza00
2007-01-19, 09:14 AM
I think there are a lot of mistaken assumptions about what base classes are.

Basically, they're collections of abilities. Like feat chains, except that you have to take them until the end or start new ones. They are NOT particular archetypes. Some of them are incredibly generic (Fighter, Rogue), whereas others are very narrow and could easily be represented by other classes (Barbarian could be a feat chain for the fighter; Ranger could be Fighter/Druid; Paladin could so easily be Fighter/Cleric).

They're just collections of abilities. That's all. There's no criteria for how specific or general they can or should be.
Now a days it may be like that, but it wasn't that originally in the old old days of D&D, then the classes were archetype, but from the progression to D&D to AD&D to 2.x to 3.0 to 3.5 base classes have become more about mechanics and less about archetypes. I am glad for this, it makes the rules of mechanics simpler and more consistent while not stopping roleplaying.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 09:16 AM
Some classes are more specific, because their collections of abilities are more specific, than others. You know what a character with a certain ability set will look like. That doesn't make classes anything more than collections of abilities.
You can't tell me what my fighter will look like. All you know is that he'll have a lot of feats.

A fighter will be heavily armed and (unless his player is deliberately nerfing his character) heavily armouered. He will probably fight with a double-handed or reach weapon, dual wielding is best left to the rangers. He will have limited social skills, relying largely on his combat abilities to see him through.

If what you wanted was a list of abilities, you could just use a pure points-buy system. The point of a class is that it will give you a particular *type* of character.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 09:20 AM
A fighter will be heavily armed and (unless his player is deliberately nerfing his character) heavily armouered. He will probably fight with a double-handed or reach weapon, dual wielding is best left to the rangers. He will have limited social skills, relying largely on his combat abilities to see him through.
Oh. See, I was thinking of a lightly-armored Fighter with high dex and a bow, who cross-classes Sense Motive, Knowledge Nobility, Bluff, and Diplomacy, getting an entirely tolerable Diplomacy modifier through +6 synergy, cross-classed ranks, and a good Charisma score.
I guess you can't tell me about my fighter just from knowing his class.


If what you wanted was a list of abilities, you could just use a pure points-buy system. The point of a class is that it will give you a particular *type* of character.I could, yes. But then it wouldn't really be D&D. Lots of classes is somewhere in between strict archetypes and point-buy; however, classes clearly don't give you a particular type of character, since, say, a Fighter or a Rogue could turn out any one of dozens of different ways. The only things they'll have in common are...yep, their class abilities.

MrNexx
2007-01-19, 09:36 AM
The base class that really bugs me, however, is Bard. Little things about it gets to me. For example, they're Arcane Casters, yet can heal. What's with that?

Why does it bother you more that they're arcane casters that can heal, than that arcane casters cannot heal?

Thomas
2007-01-19, 09:56 AM
I agree with Altair. Ultra-generic classes with endless customizability is probably the way to go.

No, skill-based systems with even more freedom of choice are the way to go.


Oh. See, I was thinking of a lightly-armored Fighter with high dex and a bow, who cross-classes Sense Motive, Knowledge Nobility, Bluff, and Diplomacy, getting an entirely tolerable Diplomacy modifier through +6 synergy, cross-classed ranks, and a good Charisma score.
I guess you can't tell me about my fighter just from knowing his class.

You freak. I was thinking of a Fighter with Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, and armor spikes, high Strength and Constitution, going into the Reaping Mauler prestige class and taking a level of Barbarian for the rage.

Or a Fighter multiclassing Swashbuckler and Duellist, wearing no armor, wielding a rapier with Weapon Finesse, and having a much better AC than any heavily-armored character...

pestilenceawaits
2007-01-19, 10:16 AM
I like the base classes in the PHB and look forward to more with every expansion book. I also agree with bears that they are generally just preset chains of feats and abilities that people can choose from. But that is what is great about them it lends itself to multi-classing and prestige classes and that is the greatest addition to the game from earlier additions. Yes I think earlier editions of the game were more about playing archetypes but then games like final fantasy for example came out where you got to mix and match skills and change jobs this created a customized character unique to you. So the new version of DnD is less about archetypes and more about creating the character you want to play.

Person_Man
2007-01-19, 10:17 AM
I've observed that for younger/newer D&D gamers, class = personality. They decide "I want to play someone like Aragorn." Aragorn is a Ranger. So they pick the Ranger class. And for them, playing a Ranger means being an archtype. If they want to play a different archtype, they play a different class.

But as most gamers play more D&D, they realize that they could have built their Aragorn like character dozens of different ways. Maybe their take on a Ranger doesn't have spells or an animal companion. Maybe his abilities are more like a Fighter with certain feats. Maybe he's a Marshal who excels at leading men (and adds his Cha bonus to Dex checks). Who knows.

The point is, you can build your class however you want, and then roleplay his character. And unless there's some built in alignment restriction in the class, you can roleplay that character almost any way you want to. I've even seen some very counter-intuitive builds (a buffed Wizard who acted as frontline melee types and called himself a fighter when people asked what he did, a Paladin with high Int, light armor, and the right feats and Skills selection, that lead a commando squad called "The Rangers."

But for some players, class will always = the fluff associated with it. And that's fine. But don't expect everyone else to agree with your take on what a Ranger is.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-19, 10:26 AM
A company here tried a 3-basic classes thing... it looked awful... I should try to get me a copy of UA.

Telonius
2007-01-19, 10:40 AM
Of the base classes in the PHB, Paladin is the one that makes the least sense to me. Trying to be a Cleric and a Fighter, but weaker than one, the other, or a combination of the two. I think that its iconic niche (honorable knight in shining armor) is filled better, flavor-wise, by the Knight base class. Even a lawful Good aligned Fighter or War Cleric would do the job better.

Bard started out as a prestige class, but became its own class. I really like the flavor of it (wandering minstrel, keeper of lore, jack of all trades). There's quite a few fantasy worlds where they were created through music, Middle Earth being one of them, so it makes sense that there would be people trying to get back to that original song. Doesn't make sense in every setting, but there's almost always some god that's related to song and storytelling. What bothers me about the bard is that it's mechanically inferior to any of the other base classes in the PHB.

I think the Ranger's mechanical problem is that the spells they get aren't very useful by the time they get them. The flavor problem is that it doesn't really make sense to their archetype to get spells in the first place.

Golthur
2007-01-19, 10:52 AM
I'm a "fewer, more generic classes" guy. My ideal system would probably be a skill-based classless system (although I'm aware of the balancing issues there).

As is, I use a heavily tweaked version of the UA generic classes - with more "build your own" mashed into them.

Glyde
2007-01-19, 10:59 AM
For Pete's sake, there clearly aren't enough base classes...

I'm working on an engineer base class in a homebrew game with my DM. Still in the process of figuring out abilities and such, but I think it'll be pretty interesting.

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-19, 11:53 AM
Golthur: I think you said something about this in my "Skill based magic system?"-thread, but why don't you elaborate?

Legoman
2007-01-19, 12:03 PM
I'm working on an engineer base class in a homebrew game with my DM. Still in the process of figuring out abilities and such, but I think it'll be pretty interesting.

As fun as homebrewing is, save yourself some time and go with the Artificer out of Ebberon.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 12:04 PM
But, uh, be careful. It's only the most powerful class in the game, CoDzilla included.

Golthur
2007-01-19, 12:06 PM
Golthur: I think you said something about this in my "Skill based magic system?"-thread, but why don't you elaborate?
Here's the five-second summary:

Basically, I have three classes - adept (spellcaster), warrior, and expert. Each is designed to be the "best" at what they do - magic, combat, or skill monkey, but each can do the job of the others if they want to sink feats/skill ranks into it. The classes aren't balanced to core classes, but are balanced to each other :wink:

Each class is more or less the same, 4+INT skill points per level EDIT: (I might up this, with restrictions, to allow "broader" characters), bonus feats every two levels, one good save, one medium save, one poor save. Feats are divvied into Combat, General, Magic, and Skills. Warriors get Combat feats as bonus feats, experts get Skills feats as bonus feats, adepts get Magic feats as bonus feats. BAB, class defense bonuses and vitality points (I use VP/WP) are about where you expect them for each class.

Most "fighter" feats don't exist per se - I have a system of "maneuvers" (not quite like ToB maneuvers, but similar thought process - mine predate ToB), which, although weaker than fighter feats, are more scalable and characters get more of them (1/level for most characters). Maneuver availability is tied to "Technique" skills, which a warrior would have to advance. He can use his bonus Combat feats to purchase these as class skills, since he doesn't need them for the combat abilities themselves.

Magic works much the same - one skill per school of magic, the adept has to use his bonus feats to purchase the skills as class skills, and must spend his skill ranks to get better at magic.

Each class gets a "perk" that the others don't get. Warriors get extra maneuvers per warrior level, adepts get bonus mana per adept level, experts get +4 skill points per expert level.

If you take a class as your 1st character level, you get a "starting package" of about 4-5 feats. If you multiclass, you not only don't get the starting package, but you also have to satisfy some feat/skill requirements (usually about 1 or 2 feats, and 6 skill ranks or so) to show that you're sinking some time/effort into learning how to fight/be a skill-monkey/use magic before taking your first level. Otherwise, no multiclass restrictions, no favoured classes, no XP penalties.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-19, 12:14 PM
But, uh, be careful. It's only the most powerful class in the game, CoDzilla included.

It is not obvious looking at the artificer why they are the most potent. I made one low-level BBEG out of it and he did okay, no better than any other BBEG. I heard one of my friends play one and he didn't do that great. Do you think you could give me a short explanation of what makes them so great?

[Note that the players in my circle are not great at power-gaming; we had a druid played up to 14th who never, ever seemed broken until he cast miasma, and that's only because we didn't have the errata that said it allowed a saving throw]

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 12:18 PM
Put simply, the Artificer is so powerful because it can do anything any spellcaster can do, two levels earlier. This is before the fact that they can apply metamagic to spell trigger items by spending extra charges, or the fact that they get an infusion that makes that not take extra charges (Wand of Divine Power! Persist one each day, for one charge! Or maybe just make two Wands of Fireball, and with Dual Wand Wielder, shoot one Empowered and one regular one each round!), or their other very potent abilities.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-19, 12:42 PM
I've observed that for younger/newer D&D gamers, class = personality. They decide "I want to play someone like Aragorn." Aragorn is a Ranger. So they pick the Ranger class. And for them, playing a Ranger means being an archtype. If they want to play a different archtype, they play a different class.

I really like your observations, Person Man. And truth is, I think this is a GOOD aspect of D&D... the fact that there are base classes with a base "archetype" associated, but that you can still tweak things to make your character how you like, even something totally counterintuitive.

I mean, have you ever seen someone new to D&D/Roleplaying games trying to make a character in a completely open system? One of my friends here (HengeMaster, where are you at?) made his own system with no classes, just points that you could put where you like to make your character literally anything you wanted. He and another veteran D&D player in our group loved the system and really got into it, enjoying the total freedom to make whatever kind of character they wished.
The newer/new players, on the other hand, struggled horribly. Even if they knew what they wanted to do, they didn't have the experience with any system necessary to know how to go about making what they wanted; or worse.. they didn't know what they wanted at all when faced with "anything" as a choice.

Having a tweakable archetype seems like the best idea for a system that wants to be good for any experience level. It's a starting point that you can work with if you want, or that you can work at breaking through when you understand the system.

Truwar
2007-01-19, 01:00 PM
Shazzbaa hit the nail right on the head. There is a reason that GURPS is not the pre-eminent RPG out there. Completely open systems may appeal to a certain niche of hard core gamers but it baffles newer players and can end up seeming VERY bland in the hands of people not willing to do a LOT of work to add life to their world.

Golthur
2007-01-19, 01:03 PM
Having a tweakable archetype seems like the best idea for a system that wants to be good for any experience level. It's a starting point that you can work with if you want, or that you can work at breaking through when you understand the system.
Somewhat agreed, although IMHO "savage guy who gets angry when he fights", "guy who fights with no weapons or armour" and "guy who fights with a sword and board" are not three separate archetypes :smile:

Telonius
2007-01-19, 02:00 PM
Somewhat agreed, although IMHO "savage guy who gets angry when he fights", "guy who fights with no weapons or armour" and "guy who fights with a sword and board" are not three separate archetypes :smile:

Well, they all have similar elements (thwacking things), but there's always been a pretty big style difference between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

Journey
2007-01-19, 02:23 PM
I agree with Altair. Ultra-generic classes with endless customizability is probably the way to go.

What you want to play, then, is a game with skill-based characters (e.g. GURPS, Harnmaster, Shadowrun) rather than a game with classes and levels.

I could understand this desire, because I myself am currently playing a game in each of those very three systems. What I don't understand is the desire to shoehorn the D&D system into what these three are with a crappy, broken hybrid of skills vs. class abilities.

Person_Man
2007-01-19, 02:24 PM
I really like your observations, Person Man. And truth is, I think this is a GOOD aspect of D&D... the fact that there are base classes with a base "archetype" associated, but that you can still tweak things to make your character how you like, even something totally counterintuitive.

I mean, have you ever seen someone new to D&D/Roleplaying games trying to make a character in a completely open system? One of my friends here (HengeMaster, where are you at?) made his own system with no classes, just points that you could put where you like to make your character literally anything you wanted. He and another veteran D&D player in our group loved the system and really got into it, enjoying the total freedom to make whatever kind of character they wished.
The newer/new players, on the other hand, struggled horribly. Even if they knew what they wanted to do, they didn't have the experience with any system necessary to know how to go about making what they wanted; or worse.. they didn't know what they wanted at all when faced with "anything" as a choice.

Having a tweakable archetype seems like the best idea for a system that wants to be good for any experience level. It's a starting point that you can work with if you want, or that you can work at breaking through when you understand the system.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I started D&D when I was 12. If it wasn't built on simple archtypes, there's no way I would have enjoyed it. Making a GURPS character was like doing algebra homework. When I was 15 I started Mage: The Ascension, loved it, but often struggled with the open ended magic system (you can do anything you can describe, if you're powerful enough).

Now that I'm 28 and have been gaming for a decade and a half, I enjoy having plenty of flexibility. But even then, D&D is something I do once a week over pizza and beer at a friends house. I enjoy chatting on the boards when it's slow at work, but D&D is not something I invest a huge portion of my life in. And even though I could create a much more logical, consistent, intelligent game then D&D myself, I'm not going to. I enjoy my social life and cooking too much. And I consider myself a pretty hardcore gamer.

To paraphrase Churchill, D&D is a lot like democracy. It is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.

krossbow
2007-01-19, 02:39 PM
I personally think that Ninja and samurai should be prestige classes.



They seem to have the level of respect that a prestige class needs.


Ninja's should get a list of tome of battle manevers and bonus's to thrown weapons (like kunai) as well as some nice abilities to do many-shot style throws.

maybe a little sneak attack, but not the entire sudden strike crap they currently have as their main thing.




Samurais should be similar to the oriental adventures one.




In addition, the dragon shaman just erks me. As it stands, I think they should be torn apart, and use their good abilities to actually retool the dragon disciple to work well.


For the dragon shaman aura's, I'd give them to the marshal; personally I think that should be a prestige class as well, not a base one.
________
Og Kush Seeds (http://marijuanaseeds.org/)

Golthur
2007-01-19, 02:42 PM
Well, they all have similar elements (thwacking things), but there's always been a pretty big style difference between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.
But that's exactly what it is to me - style. Each warrior type can choose different (or multiple) combat styles, but they're all the same basic warrior archetype. I don't feel there's a need for a separate class for each style. It's like the difference between a diviner and an evoker to me (and I don't feel there's a need for separate classes for these, either).

Although Hasbro/WOTC has a continued need to sell more books. More classes is good for that, for obvious reasons.

Ramza00
2007-01-19, 02:47 PM
They seem to have the level of respect that a prestige class needs.


Ninja's should get a list of tome of battle manevers and bonus's to thrown weapons (like kunai) as well as some nice abilities to do many-shot style throws.

maybe a little sneak attack, but not the entire sudden strike crap they currently have as their main thing.

You mean like the shadow sun ninja, perhaps with some retooling so it doesn't need unarmed specality but instead has sneak attack pre reqs and gains sneak attack progression?

krossbow
2007-01-19, 02:54 PM
Yeah; though, then again, I have to admit that alot of people alos think of ninja's as having martial arts, so I'd keep the shadow sun as a correlary.



Two different ninja prestige classes; maybe just call the other one "shinobi" or something.
________
Yamaha Phazer History (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_Phazer)

Duraska
2007-01-19, 03:02 PM
I really like the d20 modern system. I find it much easier to view my character as a person, rather than a class archetype.

For instance, let's compare two similar characters:

A level 10 ranger

vs

A level 5 fast hero / 2 strong hero / 3 tough hero

Call me a bad roleplayer, but when I hear "ranger," I automatically picture a lightly armored speed fighter who knows a lot about surviving in nature and either uses two weapons or a bow.

When I hear a level 5 fast hero / 2 strong hero / 3 tough hero, I have a much more vague vision of what that character is. I know he's quick and has great dexterity, I know he's somewhat strong and can take some abuse, but I do not know which skills, armor, weapons, etc he prefers. He could be anything from a scout to a speed-fighter to an infiltrator. Since I don't get any quick judgements of his character by looking at his class levels, I'm much more open to accepting him as a person, based on his personality and profession.

Besides, what's the point of prestige classes if you already have pre-defined base classes? Kind of silly if you ask me. Prestige classes (and advanced classes) feel much more natural in d20 modern, because my fast hero above might start taking levels in super spy (which at that point an archetype is placed upon him).

A ranger who takes prestige classes in shadow dancer (for example) just seems like a bizarre mish-mash of pre-defined archetypes...

pestilenceawaits
2007-01-19, 03:15 PM
"Snip"
I see what you are saying and it makes sense but I think the reason the base classes are what they are is because it is the "base" rule set it is used to give new players a jumping off point and something to envision when they first begin to role play. more advanced players stop seeing the archetype and begin to see the structures of the class and how they can use that structure to fit the character I envision.

TheThan
2007-01-19, 06:24 PM
I’ve always felt that base classes should point your character in a certain general direction. They shouldn’t force your character into an archetype, those archetypes already exist, and people will play them. So there’s not that much need to focus on them. The fighter is a great example. It doesn’t force you to pick a specific fighting style or force you to play a particular archetype, but it points you in the direction of a warrior. You can play that sword slinging swashbuckler or a knight in shining armor or that lightly armored archer. You can do all that without multi-classing your self to death. Plus your not being forced into a stereotype. When you pick a monk for instance, your basically forced into the whole shao-lin temple uber martial artist monk stereotype, you really don’t get much freedom of choice when it comes to abilities.

Face it, abilities are as much a part of your character as role-playing. If for example, I wanted to play a boxing champion turned adventurer I really can’t do that with the monk, I have to come up with something else. So I made a prestige class for that. That’s what makes prestige classes so great, they let you expand on your character’s abilities and gives him more of a focus. So now with a prestige class you can turn that knight in shining armor into a knight in shining armor that can transform into a winged avatar of holy justice . But another character might take that same knight in shining armor and (through prestige classing) turn him into a grim mercenary leader with extraordinary leadership abilities. Two different characters with different abilities but they started with the same basic class.


This is why a lot of base classes sort of bug me, because they are just too specific and lock a character into what the designers think class X should be like, and not what you think it ought to be like. Just look at the samurai, everyone has their own idea of what it should be like, and everyone’s idea is different. Yet no one is truly right and everyone will disagree and argue over it. But that’s what makes rpgs so great, no two campaigns are the same.

Serakus_DeSardis
2007-01-19, 06:54 PM
A fighter will be heavily armed and (unless his player is deliberately nerfing his character) heavily armouered. He will probably fight with a double-handed or reach weapon, dual wielding is best left to the rangers. He will have limited social skills, relying largely on his combat abilities to see him through.

If what you wanted was a list of abilities, you could just use a pure points-buy system. The point of a class is that it will give you a particular *type* of character.

Couldn't be less accurate. A horrible case of gross over-generalization and archtyping.

Heavy armor and weapons tend to be more of an impedance than a boon. At this point almost anyone can realize it is far more effective to be mobile and manueverable and to strike quickly. If you need any proof of this just look at the evolution of real-world warfare.

When you break it down, two weapon fighting can easily be achieved by a fighter and it may even be more effective that way. More feats means moire customization.

The_Pope
2007-01-19, 08:33 PM
Okay, you want to know the reason the bard can heal? Its because WotC resorted back to "basics" I suppose you can call it. Back in 1st, bard was a sort of prestige class, and when you became one (which was a total biznatch to do) you got the ability to cast illusionist and druid spells. Illusionist for the trickster, show-offy musician aspect, and druid spells because all bards at heart are wanderers and spend most of their time on the roads, generally speaking. And whats included in the druid spell list? Thats right, cure spells. And if you'll also look on the 3.5 bard spell list, there are the spells Speak With Animals, Speak With Plants, Animal Trance, Animal Messenger and so forth which are all found on the Druid spell list as well.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-19, 09:55 PM
Okay, lemme try a deeper analysis.

The 4 archetypical classes:


Fighter: Fighter is the basic archetype of adventurer. Strong, tough, fights well with any weapon, can wear armor.
Wizard: Wizard is the second basic archetype, when the players can use mystic power themselves. Intelligent, low physical power, little weapon skills, no armor, casts spells.
Rogue: Rogue is a variation of the Fighter, found in many classic stories. Nimble, possesses many skills, fewer weapons and armor than the Fighter, but more than the Wizard. In most games, he is also a thief, with skills to open locks, disable traps, and pick pockets.
Cleric: Cleric is the second type of spellcaster, equipped with healing magic instead of offensive magic. His flavor suggests that healing magic is "divine" in nature, so it comes from deities. Since the magic is given to him, being easier to learn, and is not as offensive as the Wizard's, he learns how to use a few more weapons, and can use armors like a Figther can.

Analysis: The thief class could be molded into a kind of fighter with less combat power and more skills and special abilities. They are basically the same thing: People that trains heavily in their areas.
Cleric and Wizard are both spell casters. Both could be incorporated into a kind of spell caster that can use all kinds of spells, restricted only by personal choices. The whole original flavor would need to be changed, though.

2nd Edition classes:


Druid: Druid was mainly a variation for divine magic users. Based on old European legends, they turned into a sort of nature-based character. He protects nature like a cleric protects his religion.
Paladin: Paladin was probably emulated as a sort of "holy warrior", like King Arthur and others. Soon he gained healing spells, making him a Fighter/Cleric, so he ended a religious kind of character. Fighter/Cleric multiclass would work fine, although some abilities like Lay-On Hands become famous, but casting healing spells would look the same.
Ranger: Ranger was created for fighters that live in the wilderness, very common places in most medieval settings. He is a light warrior that soon gained the power to cast nature based spells, making look like a Fighter/Druid. Like the paladin, the Ranger is just a sort of Fighter/spellcaster class.
Bard: Again, the Bard is a Rogue that can cast spells. Unlike the Paladin and Ranger, the Bard's magic are more common type, no divine in nature, so his magics looks more with the Wizard's ones. The Bard fills a sort of "Jack of all trades" role, so he combines the versatility of the Rogue, with some spellcasting.

Analysis: As we can see, these classes are variations of the others base classes, or multiclass combinations, with special flavor for unique powers. These powers could be turned into Feats or spells.

3rd Editon


Barbarian: Barbarian is another Fighter with a special flavor. The rules favors his more raw power with a better hit die, and not starting with medium and heavy armor like a Fighter does.
Monk: Other flavor-oriented Fighter, with unarmed and unarmored abilities (something not usual in older D&D versions). Has a smaller hit die and worse base attack than the Fighter, in exchange of more mystical powers (Crouching Tiger anyone?)
Sorcerer: Basically a Wizard clone. His flavor says that his powers come from natural talent, rather than study, so he has more raw power, and the ability to choose at will what spell he will cast, but knowing a less number of spells than the Wizard, that is a magic scholar.

All these are variations of the base classes. If the rules for Wizards get tweaked a bit to allow more freedom of spellcasting, the Sorcerer would be useless. Make a new set of Feats for Fightes, and you won't need the Barbarian or Monk.

In short, we just need two classes.
Splitting it into some archetypes, we could have Fighters:


Light Fighter: Smaller weapons, fewer armor, and more skills. You can make Rogues.
Fast Fighters: Good speed, better weapons, average skills. Rangers and Monks.
Armored Fighters: Good armor, good weapons, average skills. Typical Fighters and Paladins.
Heavy Fighters: Tough, good weapons. Barbarians.
The light, fast, and heavy fighters can buy better armors with their feats.
The light and fast fighters can buy better weapons with their feats.


And Spell Casters:


Pure Spellcaster: Physically weak. Many spells. Wizards and Sorcerers.
Average Spellcasters: Average health, better weapons. Weak spells. You can make Bards.
Tough Spellcasters: Thougher, better weapons and maybe armors. Good spellcasting, depending on the style. Clerics and Druids.


That's my take on most classes.

The_Pope
2007-01-20, 12:41 AM
Erm, Barbarians and Monks were in 1st edition. As well as Druids, Bards, Paladins and Rangers. And Sorcerers were in 2nd.

Jack_Simth
2007-01-20, 12:56 AM
A company here tried a 3-basic classes thing... it looked awful... I should try to get me a copy of UA.
The Unearthed Arcana (http://www.rpgoracle.com/srd/unearthedArcana.html) mechanics are available online; you can find the generic classes Here (http://www.rpgoracle.com/srd/unearthedNewClasses.html)

You know, in case you want to try it out before you buy it.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-01-20, 01:07 AM
Put simply, the Artificer is so powerful because it can do anything any spellcaster can do, two levels earlier. This is before the fact that they can apply metamagic to spell trigger items by spending extra charges, or the fact that they get an infusion that makes that not take extra charges (Wand of Divine Power! Persist one each day, for one charge! Or maybe just make two Wands of Fireball, and with Dual Wand Wielder, shoot one Empowered and one regular one each round!), or their other very potent abilities.
Any class that is bent well enough can be just as overpowered. I have a barbarian in my party that is literally unkillable. At 13th level he took on a marilith, coming out of it with half his hp intact. And this is all going on without any obvious cheese.

Gralamin
2007-01-20, 01:44 AM
But that's exactly what it is to me - style. Each warrior type can choose different (or multiple) combat styles, but they're all the same basic warrior archetype. I don't feel there's a need for a separate class for each style. It's like the difference between a diviner and an evoker to me (and I don't feel there's a need for separate classes for these, either).

Although Hasbro/WOTC has a continued need to sell more books. More classes is good for that, for obvious reasons.

Sounds to me like you are looking for a system like Tome of Battle (which may I say is a great system).
In my Homebrew, I've buffed up the fighter a bit by giving it access to Stone Dragon Maneuvers.

Amon Star
2007-01-20, 06:43 AM
Amon Star, I agree about the bard. They are magic users but still almost universlly considered scoundrels. I really enjoy the notion of a more "primal" spellcaster (that's what I think that bards should be), but why the trickster-thing?

Because WotC made the current Bard a poor mish-mash of multiple different styles.


Why does it bother you more that they're arcane casters that can heal, than that arcane casters cannot heal?

It bothers me because they are the ONLY arcane casters that can heal. Also, healing is ment to be the domain of the Divine in standard D&D. It shows inconsistency with the design.


Okay, you want to know the reason the bard can heal? Its because WotC resorted back to "basics" I suppose you can call it. Back in 1st, bard was a sort of prestige class, and when you became one (which was a total biznatch to do) you got the ability to cast illusionist and druid spells. Illusionist for the trickster, show-offy musician aspect, and druid spells because all bards at heart are wanderers and spend most of their time on the roads, generally speaking. And whats included in the druid spell list? Thats right, cure spells. And if you'll also look on the 3.5 bard spell list, there are the spells Speak With Animals, Speak With Plants, Animal Trance, Animal Messenger and so forth which are all found on the Druid spell list as well.

So if the modern Bard is ment to be in the style of a Celtic Loremaster, why the medival Wandering Troubadour connotations? And why Arcane Magic if they're Druidic. Also, if WotC wanted to get back to basics, why not make it a Prestige Class again?

Gurgeh
2007-01-20, 07:07 AM
If healing is the realm of the divine, then why aren't you complaining about Druids being able to cast healing spells? They don't get their power from gods, either.

Matthew
2007-01-20, 07:55 AM
Um, Druid Magic is Divine Magic, whatever the fluff (which varies from campaign to campaign). Bards blatantly got access to Healing Magic to make them more useful. It's perfectly possible to research Healing Magic as an Arcane Spell Caster, it's just unusual.

Premier
2007-01-20, 08:17 AM
I agree with Altair. Ultra-generic classes with endless customizability is probably the way to go.

Have to disagree with both of you. Classes, by definition, involve the concept of archetypes. A class-based game might have few or many archetypes, narrow or wide ones, they can be more or less customizable, but the idea of an archetype is still present. If you want truly free customizability, then the logical step is to ditch classes altogether in favour of a purely skill-based system like D6 Star Wars or Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventures.

This is exactly what I see as one of d20's greatest design mistakes. They decided to ditch archetype-based play for customization (as evidenced by the endless deluge of feats, prestige classes, playable races, templates and whatnot), but failed to take the obvious step and remove the concept of classes altogether. If you wish, it's kind of like trying to develop an airplane but insisting on tying the machine to the ground with a steel cable.

MrNexx
2007-01-20, 09:04 AM
It bothers me because they are the ONLY arcane casters that can heal. Also, healing is ment to be the domain of the Divine in standard D&D. It shows inconsistency with the design.

I can't even begin to comment on this one.

Rumda
2007-01-20, 09:38 AM
well with feats you can get healing spells as a wizard

Golthur
2007-01-20, 11:51 AM
Sounds to me like you are looking for a system like Tome of Battle (which may I say is a great system).
In my Homebrew, I've buffed up the fighter a bit by giving it access to Stone Dragon Maneuvers.
As I said, my system predates ToB but is very similar in goals (beef up fighter types) and results (fighters can do much more than just thwack, thwack, thwack every round).

ToB is, in general, a great idea (fighter-types need a serious boost from where they currently stand), but I'm less keen on the "feel". It feels too "spellcaster-y" for me, whereas my system (IMHO, but I'm biased :smallwink:) keeps a "warrior-y" feel (with the notable exception of some of my Conditioning maneuvers that are ki-dependant).

Besides, I've spent too much time tweaking my system to abandon it now. :smallsmile:

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-20, 11:52 AM
Care to post it?

Golthur
2007-01-20, 11:57 AM
Care to post it?
I assume this is directed at me?

Sure, I can do it a little bit at a time (there's several hundred maneuvers by now, but quite a few are replacements for standard PHB fighter feats), but it really requires using class defense bonuses and VP/WP to work "properly".

When I have more time (not this morning or afternoon - too busy with child-related things - but maybe this evening or tomorrow), I can start posting some of it in Homebrew.

Deepblue706
2007-01-20, 03:13 PM
For every name and title in the game, D&D has a definition, society has a definition, and you have your own.

A Barbarian could mean an uncivilized brute.

A Barbarian could mean a huge shock trooper in the military.

Either way, he gets angry and becomes a killing machine, because this is the D&D Barbarian.

I would say nearly all classes have set roles in society (However, some can exist outside common boundaries), what that role would be is entirely based on what society's view is, in your game world. Some roles might be shared in one world, while they might be quite different in others.

For instance, from what I hear about Rokugan (spelling?), Fighters are seen as inferior to Samurai.

But how do you define Fighter? It might strike many as a broad class, but it is not so in this very instance. What determines whether it is, or it isn't, is you.

I disagree with BearsWithLasers view on what the classes mean, which is something determined by innumerable factors that lead us to have preference.

When I think "Druid", I think something along the lines of a Sage.

When I think "Fighter", I think something along the lines of a seasoned tactician.

When I think "Ranger", I think a Hunter, a Beast Slayer. Maybe someone like Beowulf (Though, he could other things, depending on how you look at it). Whereas, Boromir might make up what I see a Fighter to be, and Druid to share many similarities with celtic druids.

For me, I cannot say that a Ranger = Fighter + Druid, because in the games I play, they already have their own niche. However, this does not make either of us wrong - we have each given our own meanings to the titles, and have decided how they come into play. They may share abilities, but they do not share titles, and the same progression - some people decide that to be a very important factor in determining what makes what, others do not. The only wrong way is playing in a way that you don't find appealing.

However, that is where certain elements can no longer be speculated, and you must turn to what is set in D&D, itself. What is stated in the rulebooks are the clear-cut paths to being certain characters. But do not feel so bound by what is said - while it may seem unyielding, it is only a guideline for your play. Because the game's only limit is the efforts of the players, it would be impossible, by this system, to determine a universally accepted notion of what is Class A, what is Class B, and so on, simply because of the limits imposed with each class. The reason why the game works is because the creators have a set notion of what they feel is Class A, and what is Class B, leaving no troubles to the new players in determining how to really build something with a future. The inherent problem with this is the use of the titles, the names, and our interpretation of them. There are other flaws to be found as well - after all, no system is perfect. I feel that GURPS is a superior system to D&D, as it allows for your own definitions to come to the table, allowing you to more freely create the image you want. But, as stated earlier in the thread, GURPS character creation can be arduous - and sometimes you may perfer to have all the work set out for you, via D&D levels.

Here is my advice: Do not take the names of classes at face value. Assume that the word "Barbarian" and the Barbarian class are not inherently the same. They could be, but that is entirely up to you. If you disagree with the names of classes, you could easily re-name them to more appropriately fit your campaign. Also, look into variant Rangers, Paladins, ect. Maybe, if you have the time, you might find recreating the classes to your own preferences to be very rewarding.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-20, 05:54 PM
I stand corrected. I just got a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia, and saw the definitions of several classes. So, in a way, they had PrCs already, only that they were automatic. We could elaborate a lot based on that.

Golthur
2007-01-20, 08:24 PM
Care to post it?
FYI, I've started posting it here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32372). So far I've got some of the basics down, and some heavy-armour-and-shield style maneuvers.

More will be forthcoming as time permits :smile:

The_Pope
2007-01-20, 09:57 PM
So if the modern Bard is ment to be in the style of a Celtic Loremaster, why the medival Wandering Troubadour connotations? And why Arcane Magic if they're Druidic. Also, if WotC wanted to get back to basics, why not make it a Prestige Class again?

Because it was frigging impossible to be a bard in 1st? 7 levels of fighter, then 8 levels of thief to get your first level in bard? Thanks, but I'll pass.

And as far as their style, what part of Jack-of-All-Trades do you not understand?

Vance_Nevada
2007-01-20, 11:22 PM
So if the modern Bard is ment to be in the style of a Celtic Loremaster, why the medival Wandering Troubadour connotations?

Simply, a Bard can be one of those types, both, or neither. A Bard could be a Celtic Loremaster - lots of ranks in Knowledges, divination spells, and could inspire courage by giving reminders of the courage of heroes past. A Bard could be a Wandering Troubadour who put ranks in Diplomacy, Survival, and Use Magic Device, a likeable tinkerer who wanders the land, drawing on the elemental powers of the earth for his magic. A Bard could be a sneakthief who had never left the big city in his life - high ranks in Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, who drew his power from the hypnotic sound of his own voice, as taught to him by his mentor Simon the Voice of Belmont.

The same base class, slightly different builds of it, completely different role playing styles. All, or none of them, might introduce themselves as Bards.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-20, 11:53 PM
The warlock makes no sense. You can be a good warlock. Warlocks seem to rely on ridiculously underpowered blaster and buff spells instead of curses. They don't get a familiar.

That's... well, when I think warlock, I don't think very poor attempt at making a Dragonball character in D&D. Who would even want to do such a thing?

The_Pope
2007-01-21, 12:10 AM
Simply, a Bard can be one of those types, both, or neither. A Bard could be a Celtic Loremaster - lots of ranks in Knowledges, divination spells, and could inspire courage by giving reminders of the courage of heroes past. A Bard could be a Wandering Troubadour who put ranks in Diplomacy, Survival, and Use Magic Device, a likeable tinkerer who wanders the land, drawing on the elemental powers of the earth for his magic. A Bard could be a sneakthief who had never left the big city in his life - high ranks in Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, who drew his power from the hypnotic sound of his own voice, as taught to him by his mentor Simon the Voice of Belmont.

The same base class, slightly different builds of it, completely different role playing styles. All, or none of them, might introduce themselves as Bards.

Thank you.

Amon Star
2007-01-21, 05:07 AM
Um, Druid Magic is Divine Magic, whatever the fluff (which varies from campaign to campaign). Bards blatantly got access to Healing Magic to make them more useful. It's perfectly possible to research Healing Magic as an Arcane Spell Caster, it's just unusual.

Bards aren't useless. Social skills and party buffs are good to have in a party. Also, other that various Feats that let Wizards dip into Clerical magic, I've never seen them cast a Cure Spell. Most of the limited Healing they do get is based on Necromancy. Infact, I think it actually says in the DMG that they shouldn't be able to cast healing spells at all.


I can't even begin to comment on this one.

Then don't.


Because it was frigging impossible to be a bard in 1st? 7 levels of fighter, then 8 levels of thief to get your first level in bard? Thanks, but I'll pass.

And as far as their style, what part of Jack-of-All-Trades do you not understand?

I didn't say they should go back to being THAT complex. Just make them a Prestige Class. And I have no problem with there multi-talents. It's there inconsistancy of design that bugs me. For example, I would've made them Divine Casters, like an Adept. That way they could Heal without contradicting the styles of magic.


Simply, a Bard can be one of those types, both, or neither. A Bard could be a Celtic Loremaster - lots of ranks in Knowledges, divination spells, and could inspire courage by giving reminders of the courage of heroes past. A Bard could be a Wandering Troubadour who put ranks in Diplomacy, Survival, and Use Magic Device, a likeable tinkerer who wanders the land, drawing on the elemental powers of the earth for his magic. A Bard could be a sneakthief who had never left the big city in his life - high ranks in Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, who drew his power from the hypnotic sound of his own voice, as taught to him by his mentor Simon the Voice of Belmont.

The same base class, slightly different builds of it, completely different role playing styles. All, or none of them, might introduce themselves as Bards.

Ok, that I can understand. That works if you attach no innate social status to the classes. However, I always got the feeling that isn't what WotC intended. Not that that matters at all. I'm just curious what they were trying to do.

Darkshade
2007-01-21, 05:46 AM
Have to disagree with both of you. Classes, by definition, involve the concept of archetypes. A class-based game might have few or many archetypes, narrow or wide ones, they can be more or less customizable, but the idea of an archetype is still present. If you want truly free customizability, then the logical step is to ditch classes altogether in favour of a purely skill-based system like D6 Star Wars or Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventures.

This is exactly what I see as one of d20's greatest design mistakes. They decided to ditch archetype-based play for customization (as evidenced by the endless deluge of feats, prestige classes, playable races, templates and whatnot), but failed to take the obvious step and remove the concept of classes altogether. If you wish, it's kind of like trying to develop an airplane but insisting on tying the machine to the ground with a steel cable.

hold on a second your saying they did the wrong thing by keeping classes, which is funny since without classes it WOULD NOT be DnD, it might be fantasycrawl or Dungeon: the Looting, but it would not be DnD, and despite how much people in this thread may berate DnD and talk about how they got this and that wrong remember this, Wizards took a dying game a business going bankrupt rife with internal problems that would have dissapeared forever save a few hundred nuts with dusty old books and they turned it into best selling game/edition ever. The choices made to make 3rd edition and 3.5 the way they are was for the people, you cant please everyone all the time, if DnD isnt right for you thats fine, but dont say they really screwed up because they didn't, they did their job quite well. They made a system that millions of people will enjoy, you dont like thats fine but that doesnt mean they screwed up or made a mistake. It's like some lunatic running into McDonalds and yelling at them for not being an IHOP

Premier
2007-01-21, 06:46 AM
hold on a second your saying they did the wrong thing by keeping classes, which is funny since without classes it WOULD NOT be DnD, it might be fantasycrawl or Dungeon: the Looting, but it would not be DnD,

Depends entirely on how you define what D&D is. You can either say that D&D is whatever gets published under the D&D title by the IP holder (WotC as of now), or you can say that D&D is defined by a certain set of characteristics, and certain assumptions about the game. If you adopt the first point of view, then a classless D&D would still be D&D according to the definition, simply because that's what it says on the cover. If you adopt the second one, then it can be argued that 3E/3.5E, as it were, is not D&D, since the new editions made a deliberate break with a great number of gaming style-related assumptions that were present in the game since its inception - the brand new mechanics from scratch being but one example. Now, if you wish to further discourse on this matter, then please make it clear which of the two definitions above you're adhering to.


and despite how much people in this thread may berate DnD and talk about how they got this and that wrong remember this, Wizards took a dying game a business going bankrupt rife with internal problems that would have dissapeared forever save a few hundred nuts with dusty old books and they turned it into best selling game/edition ever.

Which is a stunning success, but it's primarily a stunning success of marketing and business strategy. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with that, but it's still a fact. And neither business success nor popularity necessarily equates good, progressive, revolutionary, etc. game design. Just because 3E sells well, it can still have dubious game design choices and downright flaws. It seems to me you might be committing a bandwagon fallacy here by claiming that the game's popularity means it's all good, since "so many people can't be wrong" - at least that's how your argument comes across to me; if you meant something else, then please clarify.

Darkshade
2007-01-21, 06:55 AM
If it is right for a million people, then it is right and good for a million people, just because your not one of the people its right for does not mean that its bad or has flaws. I don't like chocolate, I wouldn't go around yelling about all of its flaws and how it can be fixed, i simply don't eat it.
if you dont think there was anything revolutionary about 3rd edition thats fine, you can feel that way, but I feel differently, the way everything was put together in a logical sensical system that was then put out as Open License basically saying hey other people come make money off of our invention because we know its better for everyone in the longrun to do it that way. I don't know a lot of companies that do things like that. do you?
DnD will never be just whats been published by the current copyright owner, and it will never be just what it was in the past in the nostalgic minds of people who are really old. It can and will always be something in between, it's a genre, it's a game, it's the foundation of the fantasy revolution of the late 20th century.

btw like Final Fantasy, changing things between editions is an attempt to improve the game and make it unique, but it can still hold true to the basic principles that make it what it is.

but maybe i am missing something please tell me about some of these deliberate breaks with the older gaming-styles?

Journey
2007-01-21, 07:15 AM
btw like Final Fantasy, changing things between editions is an attempt to improve the game and make it unique, but it can still hold true to the basic principles that make it what it is.

but maybe i am missing something please tell me about some of these deliberate breaks with the older gaming-styles?

He already did: the slew of feats, the Prestige Class system, and the skill system all break with older D&D elements. The 3.x version of D&D is an attempt at building a hybrid between an archetype based system and a skill based system. It's designed to easily create super powerful, extremely versatile characters with few or no drawbacks or flaws with the barest lip-service to the concept of archetype.

The result is that players (especially newer players) feel that unless their character has a feat, ability or skill then he "can't do it" (or else the player feels cheated because he doesn't get a bonus or special power for it). A good number of "feats" in the 3.x system were just things that players used to do by role-playing their characters differently, even if the class was the same as previous characters'.

Here's an example: the "Spring Attack" feat. In 3.x, of course, character's "can't" do this sort of move-attack-move without this feat without provoking an attack of opportunity. But prior to 3.x, this sort of attack was still possible; the DM might have required a DEX check or something from the player having his character attempt it. It's also an example of how one player's "careful, cautious, but brave and burly" fighter differed from another's "quick, nimble, and risk-taking" fighter, even though the two characters' basic class abilities were almost identical.

See the difference? Then: players chose actions based on what they wanted their characters' personalities to do, pretty freely as long as they had the imagination for it; now: players customize their characters like one pimps out a car--all the choices are pre-made and you just have to pick the one that gives the biggest plus!

Premier
2007-01-21, 07:31 AM
If it is right for a million people, then it is right and good for a million people, just because your not one of the people its right for does not mean that its bad or has flaws.

To avoid misunderstandings, I'm not saying 3E has design flaws because I dislike 3E; I'm saying it because I see design flaws in it. Or, for the purposes of this conversation, the one particular flaw of getting stuck between a class- and a skill-based system. But to pick up your choccies example, chocolate might be right and good for a million people, but it's still bad for you teeth. This isn't a disparaging statement about it's taste, which IS awesome, or it's popularity, which IS undeniable, but an observation about another aspect of it. Saying that chocolate can't be bad for your teeth because it's too popular for that would be the same argumentum ad populum fallacy as saying that 3E can't have design choices because it's too popular for that to be imaginable.


if you dont think there was anything revolutionary about 3rd edition thats fine, you can feel that way, but I feel differently,

You're perfectly right, my use of the word "revolutionary" up there was misplaced and misunderstandable. My bad. Please skip that one word when reading my argument. :)


DnD will never be just whats been published by the current copyright owner, and it will never be just what it was in the past in the nostalgic minds of people who are really old. It can and will always be something in between, it's a genre, it's a game, it's the foundation of the fantasy revolution of the late 20th century.

All right, then what is D&D, according to your own, specific and abstract definition? I'm asking because saying that "it's something great in between" is just so mushy you can't argue either way with that. I mean, you're saying that being a class-based system is an indispensible part of "D&D-ness", but without saying what exactly you consider to be "D&D-ness". For example, is being class-based more or less important to the essence of D&D than being a fantasy game? A deliberately provocative question, since you yourself called it the "foundation of the fantasy revolution of the late 20th century", whereas D&D did and does have sci-fi connotations. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and other such things aside, there was also the Buck Rogers setting for the old editions, and futuristic d20 systems today. Are THOSE D&D or not? And if D&D could do something that wildly different and still remain D&D, then how can you claim that it couldn't get rid of classes and still remain D&D?


but maybe i am missing something please tell me about some of these deliberate breaks with the older gaming-styles?

Well, just some things that come to mind as obvious: One, old editions firmly had their roots in the idea of playing archetypes. Even with late 2E, kits and the like were just ways of narrowing archetypes, but the concept of archetypes wasn't challenged "ideologically" - which is what 3E does buy adhering to the concept of "full customizability". A number of specific design choices (free race/class combinations, feats, large number of classes and races) are a direct manifestation of this concept.

Two, old editions operated on the assumption that a single continuous campaign takes a LONG time - you could play a weekly game for months without leveling up. In 3E, leveling up is fast, because the game's main target audience are the kids and teenagers who have been socialized into gaming by MMORPGs and other computer games, and who have therefore come to expect a constant and easy gratification in the form of quick leveling.

Three, again more "ideological" than mechanical, old editions assumed that the DM will use the system as a base which he will embellish with his own heavy houseruling; and that therefore, the system as printed should not even try to cover every imaginable possibility with game mechanics. This made the game somewhat akin to building railroad models or to wargaming (where, back then, you didn't have ready-to-play rules out of the box like today with Warhammer and the like). By contrast, modern editions operate on an idea of uniformity, meaning that with every possible issue covered by rules, DM's will not have/want to come up with their own house rules.

There you go, three examples. Gotta go now.

Darkshade
2007-01-21, 07:33 AM
feats and skills are a natural extension of nonweapon and weapon proficiencies and all the systems from the advanced 2nd edition rules that let you do more with those things.
and while in the past you could as a player say, well I want to try and do this, you never had a guarantee that you could do it, some people never even thought to try such things
okay you dont make your character the unique quick nimble risk-taking fighter SOLELY by roleplaying now instead you get to choose feats that HELP him be that guy and THEN you roleplay those characters aspects too, you dont just give up on the roleplay side because the system is better defined!
I've seen 2nd edition Whirlwind Attack, I suggest you go look it up
btw Prestige Classes started in 1st edition with Bard, the existence of a prestige class isnt new, just the skillfull implementation.
and why is everyone always complaining that they have sooo many options like its a bad thing! I know people who gave up on 2nd edition because they couldn't make the kind of characters they wanted to play from the base calsses in that system without putting way too much effort into it. Some people like the simplicity of being able to choose 20 different skills and feats and classes to make the character that THEY want. having 100 archetypal character classes isnt preventing you from beign what you want, its making it easier to get the exact combination that makes you you.

try playing a human Fighter/Rogue/Mage in 2nd edition, you'll have to dual class and it will suck
try playing a fighter/mage Elf, then you'll really suck
no matter how many feats and skills and abilities the game lays out and makes legitimate easy to follow and adjudicate rules for it will never take away your ability to roleplay just exactly who your character is if anything it can and should be used to better roleplay the character. you want to set your nimble fighter aside from the bulky one, take tumble and balance and jump, take feats that make you fast and nimble and quick and risk taking.

your example is basically saying that you should be trying to do things that your DM has no real rules for so you hope hell benice and let you do it with a stat check even though teh 2nd edition rules clearly state its move attack or attack move never move attack move

but that its bad that this system lets you be a fighter, take tumble, dodge, mobility, and spring attack and then do EXACTLY what you wanted to do in 2nd edition only without a hassle and without a roll

I'm sorry but I'll take the system that lets me say hey, I AM a quick crafty fighter and I have the skills and abilities to prove it. then proceed to play a quick crafty fighter!

Darkshade
2007-01-21, 07:45 AM
To avoid misunderstandings, I'm not saying 3E has design flaws because I dislike 3E; I'm saying it because I see design flaws in it. Or, for the purposes of this conversation, the one particular flaw of getting stuck between a class- and a skill-based system. But to pick up your choccies example, chocolate might be right and good for a million people, but it's still bad for you teeth. This isn't a disparaging statement about it's taste, which IS awesome, or it's popularity, which IS undeniable, but an observation about another aspect of it. Saying that chocolate can't be bad for your teeth because it's too popular for that would be the same argumentum ad populum fallacy as saying that 3E can't have design choices because it's too popular for that to be imaginable.

im saying that to say a gaming system has a design flaw is a point of view, thats an opinion. Not a fact, chocolate is bad for your teeth that is a fact and i dont have to like chocolate for me saying that its bad for my teeth is a valid argument, but if i were to say that chocolate is to sweet that is an opinion and coming from someone who doesnt like chocolate its not a very moving one.



All right, then what is D&D, according to your own, specific and abstract definition? I'm asking because saying that "it's something great in between" is just so mushy you can't argue either way with that. I mean, you're saying that being a class-based system is an indispensible part of "D&D-ness", but without saying what exactly you consider to be "D&D-ness". For example, is being class-based more or less important to the essence of D&D than being a fantasy game? A deliberately provocative question, since you yourself called it the "foundation of the fantasy revolution of the late 20th century", whereas D&D did and does have sci-fi connotations. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and other such things aside, there was also the Buck Rogers setting for the old editions, and futuristic d20 systems today. Are THOSE D&D or not? And if D&D could do something that wildly different and still remain D&D, then how can you claim that it couldn't get rid of classes and still remain D&D?

to that I respond is Final Fantasy still Final Fantasy even though FF7 was in a world filled with technology?



Well, just some things that come to mind as obvious: One, old editions firmly had their roots in the idea of playing archetypes. Even with late 2E, kits and the like were just ways of narrowing archetypes, but the concept of archetypes wasn't challenged "ideologically" - which is what 3E does buy adhering to the concept of "full customizability". A number of specific design choices (free race/class combinations, feats, large number of classes and races) are a direct manifestation of this concept.

while i can see where that argument is coming from I ahve to point out that all the people who talk about the great times they had back in 1st edition seem to talk about their unique and different and interesting characters they played, I've never heard one go "in my day I played the Archetypal Elf" Just because a system seems to be stuck in archetypes doesnt mean that its being played that way.


Two, old editions operated on the assumption that a single continuous campaign takes a LONG time - you could play a weekly game for months without leveling up. In 3E, leveling up is fast, because the game's main target audience are the kids and teenagers who have been socialized into gaming by MMORPGs and other computer games, and who have therefore come to expect a constant and easy gratification in the form of quick leveling.

I've played in campaigns that took months between levels, that pacing is entirely up to the DM, I'll admit that the DMG talks about it taking an average of i believe six sessions per level, which is faster then the older editions.

I do feel it is worth pointing out though, that with the new system in place and the ease and flow of doing things some things now take a lot less time then they used to.


Three, again more "ideological" than mechanical, old editions assumed that the DM will use the system as a base which he will embellish with his own heavy houseruling; and that therefore, the system as printed should not even try to cover every imaginable possibility with game mechanics. This made the game somewhat akin to building railroad models or to wargaming (where, back then, you didn't have ready-to-play rules out of the box like today with Warhammer and the like). By contrast, modern editions operate on an idea of uniformity, meaning that with every possible issue covered by rules, DM's will not have/want to come up with their own house rules.

There you go, three examples. Gotta go now.

except that lots of old school gamers shared their house rules, and a lot was even published back then before they started pursuing copyright infringement cases. Some of the MOST POPULAR stuff was house rules and hom campaigns published by other sources that was incorporated into 2nd and 3rd edition. You cant make rules for everything but when you dont make rules for anything and just say hey just sorta freelance it, then you are turning away a whole group of people who crave structure! btw having a lot of structure doesnt really keep out the people who dont like it since you can after all throw out any and every rule that you dont like

Journey
2007-01-21, 07:47 AM
Two, old editions operated on the assumption that a single continuous campaign takes a LONG time - you could play a weekly game for months without leveling up. In 3E, leveling up is fast, because the game's main target audience are the kids and teenagers who have been socialized into gaming by MMORPGs and other computer games, and who have therefore come to expect a constant and easy gratification in the form of quick leveling.This is very well said. I can just imagine the fit that would ensue if a person who's only ever played D&D 3.x tried, say, a Harnmaster campaign. I've been tempted to start one in the play-by-post forums here, but I think it'd fail miserably.


Three, again more "ideological" than mechanical, old editions assumed that the DM will use the system as a base which he will embellish with his own heavy houseruling; and that therefore, the system as printed should not even try to cover every imaginable possibility with game mechanics. This made the game somewhat akin to building railroad models or to wargaming (where, back then, you didn't have ready-to-play rules out of the box like today with Warhammer and the like). By contrast, modern editions operate on an idea of uniformity, meaning that with every possible issue covered by rules, DM's will not have/want to come up with their own house rules.


This is very well stated, and it reinforces exactly what I've written. The "choices" under the new system are actually a giant rules-railroading.

Darkshade
2007-01-21, 07:57 AM
the only way having 1000 different options can limit or railroad you in ANY way is if you let it.

Matthew
2007-01-21, 07:59 AM
Bards aren't useless. Social skills and party buffs are good to have in a party. Also, other that various Feats that let Wizards bit into Clerical magic, I've never seen them cast a Cure Spell. Most of the limited Healing they do get is based on Necromancy. Infact, I think it actually says in the DMG that they shouldn't be able to cast healing spells at all.

I never said they were, but giving them access to Healing Spells through Arcane Magic is blatantly an attempt to make them *more* useful, particularly with regard to combat and the aftermath.
It does indeed say that Wizards and Sorcerers should not be able to cast Healing Spells in the DMG with regard to the creation of new Spells. Those are guidelines intended to prevent imbalanced Spells from entering the game, they are not regulations as to what is and is not possible. Would it really make such a big difference if Wizards and Sorcerers could cast Healing Spells? Seems doubtful t me.
The point is there is nothing about Arcane Magic that makes it unsuitable for casting Healing Spells, these things are restricted by Class and only by suggestion (Anecdotally, yes I have been in games where Wizards and Sorcerers use Healing Spells before, if that matters).

Journey
2007-01-21, 08:09 AM
the only way having 1000 different options can limit or railroad you in ANY way is if you let it.

You mean such as by not thinking of things one's character might do that aren't described by a feat, skill, ability, or other special bonus that gives another plus to a roll of the dice?

The flexibility you describe is illusory. These "1000 different options" existed before they were encoded into the rules and associated with bonuses for characters (but I'm sure this is not at all a factor in why they're so popular).

Matthew
2007-01-21, 08:14 AM
It's true. You only have 1,000 different options for customising your character, which isn't the same thing as your character having 1,000 different options.

3.x created a great many options for characters, but in defining those options it closed off options outside of those given.

Mind you, I don't think it was terribly different in previous editions, as most DMs would create their own procedures and limitations.

One of the suggestions of 2.x was 'never say no, assign a difficulty', which was all well and good, but could lack consistancy.

Darkshade
2007-01-21, 08:17 AM
no the lack of flexibility you describe is illusory, if you want to let there being hundreds of options get in the way of thinking of tactics and things to do to make your character unique then you can, but i dont and i wont.

I remember the last meeting i was at when we were in a sewer and the elf dragon shaman with the longspear ended up taking a 5 foot step back from higher ground on top of the dwarf whose tower shield was being held above his head just so that he could attack with his reach weapon there are no rules no feats no fancy stuff for doing that specific manuever though i will admit it was having a nice system in place that said hey, make a balance check because that makes sense. Then later when that dwarf died being eaten by an undead water worm thing he took his lil dwarven keg of holy water with him and when that sucker bit into it he payed the price for eating our little buddy, and he didnt even have to take exotic weapon proficiency keg, looking back i remember a pirate campaign we were in where the guy playing the captain had the spring attack feat!!! but instead of just running over, stabbing someone then running away he made his style unique because at the end of his running away he would always turn to face his enemy turn a little to the right and put one knee up in the air. yes his name was Captain Morgan and he had a LOT of captain in him.

Matthew
2007-01-21, 08:30 AM
Sure, but there are things that you can't do any longer without Feats, such as move and strike with two blades simultaneously or move, attack and then move.

Darkshade
2007-01-21, 08:36 AM
true, but if you want to play a character that can do those things you can take the feats, if you want to play a big strong guy then you wont take dodge or mobility and oyu wont be a mobile fast little guy but thats not who you are anyway, sometimes having a limit on the number of things you can excel at does more for making your character real and helping you roleplay it then being able to do and try anything you want, just like a REAL person your character has limits. I can't go into rage no matter how hard I try, I certainly don't think some Wizard i'm playing should be able to either. I can't walk around comfortably in Heavy Armor all day, I dont have the training or the fitness, but my Cleric sure does and he makes use of it.

Matthew
2007-01-21, 08:47 AM
That's the point, though. A character can't even attempt to move, attack and then move in 3.x without the Feats (or so it would seem). That's why it is both the most open and most closed version going. Anything is possible [with the right Feats], whereas previous editions just flat claimed anything is possible.

Both statements are true and untrue, as there is nothing really stopping a DM from allowing Characters to attempt these things without Feats in any edition, its just that the mechanics would be House Rules.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-21, 09:00 AM
To counter the In 3e People Won't Try To Do Something Unless They Have The Feat point: In 3e, anyone can use any weapon, they just take a -4 to hit if they don't have proficiency. In old D&D, you just plain couldn't use them. I always got the mental image of a guy in wizard robes trying to use a longsword- "I can't pick it up. There's some kind of forcefield stopping me wielding it"

Journey
2007-01-21, 09:04 AM
To counter the In 3e People Won't Try To Do Something Unless They Have The Feat point: In 3e, anyone can use any weapon, they just take a -4 to hit if they don't have proficiency. In old D&D, you just plain couldn't use them. I always got the mental image of a guy in wizard robes trying to use a longsword- "I can't pick it up. There's some kind of forcefield stopping me wielding it"

The -4 penalty is a carry-over from the weapon proficiency rules in 2nd Edition. Any character could use any weapon he liked, but couldn't use it well unless he were proficient.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-21, 09:05 AM
Hmmm. I swear you just plain couldn't use it. Must have just been the Basic Set.

Matthew
2007-01-21, 09:11 AM
Yeah, the (A)D&D Weapon limitations were with regard to what you could gain proficiency in, rather than what you could use. For Priests, some weapons were simply forbidden. By the time of Player's Option: Skills and Powers all weapons were officially available for proficiency, but at increased cost.

Yakk
2007-01-21, 10:57 AM
Note that AD&D had more functional multiclassing for caster types.

A cleric/wizard was somewhat viable. You got lots more spells, but later, and you had MAD problems.

Today, they have to custom-craft a prestigue class that effectively replicates what happened naturally under AD&D.

I'm not saying AD&D multiclassing was roses -- I'm just saying it delt with spellcasting more organically.

Yakk
2007-01-21, 11:09 AM
I suspect 2 classes is too few.

Rogues are not a fighting class, under the original archtype. Rogues where a sneaking class. They opened doors, unlocked trapped chests, and could leverage their sneaking into damage via backstabs.

Clerics where a healing and blessing class. The Cleric didn't start out with spells -- instead she started out with turn undead, and got spells at L 2. This was ok, because undead where a pretty staple critter. Plus the Cleric was nearly as good as the Fighter at fighting.

The Fighter was... well, the default class. When you rolled poorly, you made a Fighter, because they didn't require any good stats to do their job. Their job was, of course, get hit and die.

The Wizard was the glass cannon. The Wizard sat back, was guarded by layers of fighting men, waited for the right moment, then blew up the big bad guy.

Now, that isn't something you want to replicate nessicarially. But it does generate a different set of archtypes:

Meatshield. Tough. Job is to prevent monster-shredding of groupmates.

Sneak. Sneaky. Job is to scout (using senses and/or stealth), deal with traps/locks, and generally be sneaky.

Grinder. Consistant damage. Job is to do damage to minor minions who aren't worth using big guns on.

Glass Cannon. Boom. Easy to kill, limited ammo, but damn if it doesn't just win.

Priest. Healer. Job is to heal damage taken by the party, with a few weaker but still useful spells.

In 1st, the Meatshield and the Sneak and the Priest all qualified as Grinders.

By 3rd, the Glass Cannon is more about "everyone but the party is helpless" than "everyone but the party is fried".

The Priest has become a Cannon.

Grinder damage output has matched the Cannon's.

Jorkens
2007-01-21, 01:24 PM
Out of interest, what are the literary / mythological precedents for divine magic as used by clerics? Praying to ones god for a miracle seems to be the sort of thing that shouldn't allow you to create minor effects several times a day...

It would seem to make more sense for the cleric's benefits to represent the fact that virtually all education in the middle ages was religious - so their knowledge could cover any of herbal / traditional healing (accelerated to allow for the fact that in a fantasy world you can have magic healing herbs), "general knowledge", maybe limited arcane magic, politics, plant / animal lore or a lot of other stuff depending on the style of the religion and the character. Actual manifestations of divine power would seem more natural if they appeared in certain preset benefits representing a divine 'helping hand' (good vs undead, bonuses to will saves, maybe bonuses to random other stuff if you pray at critical moments) and in very occasional full blown miracles that you can only get at at high level.

But that's from a point of view of the flavour of a medieval / fantasy cleric as I understand it, rather than from a gameplay point of view.

Matthew
2007-01-21, 01:33 PM
Not sure about the Spell Casting, but the Cleric was loosely based on the Medieval Military Orders [i.e. Warrior Monks]. Their Spell Casting Powers were to begin with quite limited. Healing, Blessing, Protection from Evil, Turn Undead - all fairly easily identifiable as being the sorts of things one would expect Holy Men to be able to do in a world where Deities manifest such miracles.

Yakk
2007-01-21, 02:18 PM
History of D&D:

First, start with minature warfare. Each unit has a damage, armor class, and hit points until death.

Now, get tired of painting armies, and start statting out heros. Fewer minatures to paint, very similar game.

Add in special ops units. Sneaky units.

Add in fantasy. Wizard heros who can cast spells that destroy massed units, battle cleric heros who have similar miracles. Why do the clerics have healing magic? Because they are a counterpart to Wizard heros, naturally.

Add in Elf heros, Dwarf heros, and Halfling heros. Base them off of Tolkien -- Dwarves are basically fighters, Halflings are rogues, and Elves are fighter/wizards. You want to be able to describe a hero by one name, because you got a lot of units.

Now just reduce to the heros, and get rid of the armies. A dungeon makes a really simple, constrained, place to fight, so play a dungeon crawl.

Realize the resulting game is more amusing than the original wargame. Start giving your heros personalities and "role playing" them. (which probably started with bad scottish accents...)

Stir for a bit, and you get D&D.

Dark
2007-01-21, 02:42 PM
Now just reduce to the heros, and get rid of the armies. A dungeon makes a really simple, constrained, place to fight, so play a dungeon crawl.

I read once -- I don't remember where -- that it started with modeling siege warfare. When you have your army camped outside a castle, one thing you can do is to have people dig tunnels under the castle walls. If you don't have access to black powder to blow up the foundations, you do the next best thing: you send a small squad (of heroes, naturally) through the tunnels into the castle, in order to open the gates. The existing rules for heroes on the battlefield were easily adapted to this.

A tunnel that goes under a castle will naturally connect to the castle dungeons (underground prison cells), and there you have it: the original Dungeon.

Premier
2007-01-21, 03:55 PM
I read once -- I don't remember where -- that it started with modeling siege warfare. When you have your army camped outside a castle, one thing you can do is to have people dig tunnels under the castle walls. If you don't have access to black powder to blow up the foundations, you do the next best thing: you send a small squad (of heroes, naturally) through the tunnels into the castle, in order to open the gates.

Nitpick: trying to open the heavily guarded gates is NOT the next best thing. The next best thing is tunneling under the corner towers, then suddenly removing all the supports you've been shoring up the tunnel with, causing the tower to collapse.

Yakk
2007-01-21, 04:17 PM
Removing the supports is hard on the support removers. :)

Cybren
2007-01-21, 05:18 PM
For every name and title in the game, D&D has a definition, society has a definition, and you have your own.

A Barbarian could mean an uncivilized brute.

A Barbarian could mean a huge shock trooper in the military.

BLARGLE....
Here is my advice: Do not take the names of classes at face value. Assume that the word "Barbarian" and the Barbarian class are not inherently the same. They could be, but that is entirely up to you. If you disagree with the names of classes, you could easily re-name them to more appropriately fit your campaign. Also, look into variant Rangers, Paladins, ect. Maybe, if you have the time, you might find recreating the classes to your own preferences to be very rewarding.
I thought barbarian was someone who had a beard.
It's all nonsense though because everyone knows alignment fully determines your characters personality and backstory, not their class.

Jack_Simth
2007-01-21, 05:19 PM
Removing the supports is hard on the support removers. :)
The classical method was to use wooden supports, lots of tinder, and a torch. Set the tinder ablaze, leave. The supports catch fire after you've left.

Deepblue706
2007-01-21, 05:30 PM
I thought barbarian was someone who had a beard.


No, Wizards have beards. And alignment doesn't have anything to do with personality. Actually, what magical items a character carries fully determines that (And if you have no magical items, then you have no personality).

Cybren
2007-01-21, 06:47 PM
No, Wizards have beards. And alignment doesn't have anything to do with personality. Actually, what magical items a character carries fully determines that (And if you have no magical items, then you have no personality).
No no barbarians and rangers have stubble, wizards have full beards OR short well groomed hair with a mustache, and rogues have those fake mustache glasses things so they can sneak around

krossbow
2007-01-21, 07:16 PM
Bards just get goatees.


which brings up the classic question: Have you EVER in a campaign, ran into an elf with a beard?

Matthew
2007-01-21, 07:38 PM
The theory is that Barbarian language sounded like barbarbar, to the Greeks, and when the Romans took the word over they associated it with bearded people (i.e. non Roman)...

Vance_Nevada
2007-01-21, 07:41 PM
which brings up the classic question: Have you EVER in a campaign, ran into an elf with a beard?

I play an elf cleric with a huge, thick brown beard - moustache, sideburns and all, hanging down to his chest.

Yakk
2007-01-21, 11:18 PM
If you are an elf with a beard, that means you are from the evil universe.

Duh.

Gurgeh
2007-01-22, 02:42 AM
where, back then, you didn't have ready-to-play rules out of the box like today with Warhammer and the like

I'd just like to point out that Warhammer's been around for twenty-four years now and had ready-to-play rules out of the box from first edition. I don't see how it's a new-fangled game that's fuelling a trend of hyperactive teenage gamers - it's probably been around much longer than most users here have been gaming.

Premier
2007-01-22, 06:36 AM
I'd just like to point out that Warhammer's been around for twenty-four years now and had ready-to-play rules out of the box from first edition. I don't see how it's a new-fangled game that's fuelling a trend of hyperactive teenage gamers - it's probably been around much longer than most users here have been gaming.

Well, I was comparing it to historical miniature wargaming, since that's what D&D originally grew out of (after introducing the fantasy element, naturally); and that harkens back to Kriegspiel invented in the early 19th century.

But be that as it may, I never actually said that the houserules vs. "universal factory rules" distinction has anything to do with the hyperactive teenager trend. You're mixing it up with my other, "slow vs. quick levelling" distinction. Two completely different things.

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-22, 07:01 AM
All this is quite interesting and leads me to another question: what would D&D 3E be if you (and by "you", I mean all you people from the "fewer classes, skills and feats, more roleplaying"-camp) would decide? Should skills be exchanged for class abilities altogether? I've never played earlier versions of D&D than 3.0, but it seems to me that this was (more or less) the case with AD&D. Am I correct?

If so, how would you modernize the game? I mean, having a game purely based on a mixture of pseudo-medieval warfare and Tolkien seems quite silly and unimaginative nowadays. I would propose four archetypes:

Spellcaster: Academix magician. Both priestly characters and wizard could fit this archetype.
Rogue: Not sure about this one, probably lot's of scoundrel-ish class abilities.
Warrior: Fighter. Tank, bowman, fencer or something else.
Channeler: The new element. :smallsmile: Favoured Soul, warlock and similar innate magic users would all go into this one. Doesn't use spells, channels magical "energy" and shapes it into effects (turning, "eldritch blast", wild shape and so forth) instead.

Journey
2007-01-22, 07:51 AM
All this is quite interesting and leads me to another question: what would D&D 3E be if you (and by "you", I mean all you people from the "fewer classes, skills and feats, more roleplaying"-camp) would decide? Should skills be exchanged for class abilities altogether? I've never played earlier versions of D&D than 3.0, but it seems to me that this was (more or less) the case with AD&D. Am I correct?
More or less you are correct, depending on the edition. For my personal favorite, 2nd edition, you are less correct.


If so, how would you modernize the game? I mean, having a game purely based on a mixture of pseudo-medieval warfare and Tolkien seems quite silly and unimaginative nowadays. There isn't a single original story idea in the world, anywhere. It's all been done, one way or another. Nowadays it's all about the packaging.

I would have modernized 2nd edition first by streamlining the mechanics (the one thing I think WoTC actually did well), by tweaking the proficiency system (e.g. by giving more slots), and by generating more optional class abilities available as a character progressed through his levels (similar to the way a character gains feats, but not even close with respect to number).

I'd have kept the basic archetypes presented.

Previous editions weren't any more or less prone to abuse, and what groups consider abusive has always varied widely. In my case, I believe it's much harder to abuse a rules-light system than it is to abuse a rules-heavy system. This is because in the former it is (or at least with my groups it was) generally agreed to be incumbent on the player to justify why his character could do something to the DM so he'd allow it, while in the latter, since it's encoded in the core rules, the burden shifts to the DM to justify disallowing something.

At some point, however a lack of rules becomes a hindrance because the basic framework with which to invoke the DM's prerogative isn't well structured, and the context for making these decisions doesn't exist or is ambiguous.

The 3.x system is much heavier by orders of magnitude than 2nd edition (which in turn was heavier than previous editions, but not nearly to the extent that 3.x is in comparison to 2.x or earlier versions), and that's essentially why I find it less appealing.

Amon Star
2007-01-22, 08:30 AM
I never said they were, but giving them access to Healing Spells through Arcane Magic is blatantly an attempt to make them *more* useful, particularly with regard to combat and the aftermath.
It does indeed say that Wizards and Sorcerers should not be able to cast Healing Spells in the DMG with regard to the creation of new Spells. Those are guidelines intended to prevent imbalanced Spells from entering the game, they are not regulations as to what is and is not possible. Would it really make such a big difference if Wizards and Sorcerers could cast Healing Spells? Seems doubtful t me.
The point is there is nothing about Arcane Magic that makes it unsuitable for casting Healing Spells, these things are restricted by Class and only by suggestion (Anecdotally, yes I have been in games where Wizards and Sorcerers use Healing Spells before, if that matters).

Ok, I can understand my Bards, the ultimate generalists should heal. But I also say that their magic should've been Divine, like an Adepts. Especially as you don't need a Diety to get Divine magic these days.
Whether "Arcane can't Cure" is a guideline or a stricture is up to the individual. Technically, everything is a guideline, but that line of thought means that people can only debate opinions and style.
As for the idea of Arcane Healing, well, I only have a problem with it in D&D. And that's because I'm old and stuck in my ways. If an individual wants to do it, then that fine, but WotC doing it with there core material goes against the old Cleric/Wizard divide. But as I said, I'm an old player and that is just me.


Bards just get goatees.

That means all bards are EVIL!!! :tongue:


which brings up the classic question: Have you EVER in a campaign, ran into an elf with a beard?

Yes, but not in D&D. Though I once saw a picture with a bearded Drow.

MrNexx
2007-01-22, 09:16 AM
Previous editions weren't any more or less prone to abuse, and what groups consider abusive has always varied widely. In my case, I believe it's much harder to abuse a rules-light system than it is to abuse a rules-heavy system. This is because in the former it is (or at least with my groups it was) generally agreed to be incumbent on the player to justify why his character could do something to the DM so he'd allow it, while in the latter, since it's encoded in the core rules, the burden shifts to the DM to justify disallowing something.

...

The 3.x system is much heavier by orders of magnitude than 2nd edition (which in turn was heavier than previous editions, but not nearly to the extent that 3.x is in comparison to 2.x or earlier versions), and that's essentially why I find it less appealing.

This is a very good point, and sums up my feelings very well.

Or, to use the vulgar tongue, QFT.

Gurgeh
2007-01-22, 10:22 AM
There isn't a single original story idea in the world, anywhere. It's all been done, one way or another. Nowadays it's all about the packaging.

Do you hear that sound out on the beach? The last wave just broke. Claiming that originality is impossible and that every story has already been told is the last-ditch defence of Joseph Campbell tragics and 15-year-old homeschooled fantasy authors. For you to even entertain that idea would imply that you don't read... well, anything good. At all. At least, not anything good that's been published since the delightfully ambiguous 'nowadays'.

---

As for Warhammer vs its predecessors, I don't really see a dichotomy there so much as two completely unrelated concepts. Warhammer is a concrete game with rules and a solidly structured 'engine', similar to Chess, Risk, or modern computer games, while wargames of the older school were really just grown-up versions of playing with toy soldiers. While a more free-form system works nicely for role-playing where the players are working together, it doesn't work as well for a wargame where the players are trying to defeat one another, because nine times out of ten you get stuck in the cowboys-and-indians situation where one player is saying 'I shoot you!' and the other is saying 'nuh-uh, you missed me!'

And it doesn't change the fact that Warhammer isn't much younger than D&D - it predates Second Edition AD&D and is hardly an example of a 'now vs then' situation. I don't really see how you're qualified to go on about 'back then' when you'd most likely have been eating paste in kindergarten at the time. Trying to connect Warhammer with the changes Wizards made to D&D with Third Edition is pointless, because there is no connection.

In fact, I can see why roleplayers - particularly those who prefer the older editions of D&D - dislike Warhammer. Its execution is almost wholly defined; there are rules for almost every commonplace situation and the basic mechanics of the game work almost exclusively by 'roll a D6 to achieve a score determined by the statistics of your and your opponent's models'. Hell, the semi-official rule for where the rules fail is a roll-off to see if a dodgy maneuvre is house-ruled in for the game or not.

But the fluff (and this is the fluff of the army and characters under your command, not the game's backstory and setting) is left entirely up to the players. The books don't predetermine the motives and temperament of your general in the way that an 'archetypal' system's classes and alignments do, and they don't frown on unconventionally-constructed armies that don't necessarily follow the theme laid out in their army book (All-melee Wood Elf armies, Bretonnian peasant hordes, mass-infantry High Elf armies...).

In other words, they let the players build the type or army they want to build, with the concept that they want to use, and simply provide rules for using the army - while apparently D&D ought to shoehorn players into predetermined party roles and allow no rules-based leeway for those who want to use a character concept that isn't portrayed by the eleven (or four, or whatever the 'proper' number may be decided to be) core classes - and those who don't like it and would prefer to exercise more creativity in their role-playing should just 'go and play GURPS'. Let's face it, there's about as much role-playing involved in using 'The Cleric' or 'The Fighter' as there is in playing Final Fantasy.

So one system lets you use whatever crazy ideas you like and provides a fair and universal rules framework for executing it, while the other forces you to fit your ideas to one of a small number of predetermined characters and has a set of rules that are more like guidelines and can be fudged without limit by the DM. Perhaps I've been unfair in my summary, but only one of those sounds fun to me.

DISCLAIMER: I realise that this post seems somewhat strident in tone. I blame it on my inability to ever say anything conciliatory. I don't intend this to be an attack on anybody's person or views, I just consider this to be my point of view. This topic's already fairly hostile and I don't want it to inch any closer to a flame war. <_<

MrNexx
2007-01-22, 10:46 AM
"Somewhat strident", Gurgeh? (Gurgi?) That's stating it mildly. However, I think you're underselling D&D (something I consider to be hard to do). 3.5 has a large range of variability due to choices in skill selection, multiclassing, racial choice and, once you get into the game itself, character background (be it from published settings or not).

Gurgeh
2007-01-22, 10:59 AM
I was talking more about the argument advanced by Journey et al of 'archetypes' favoured by 2E and previous. I'm well aware that 3.x is more flexible than the older editions, and I thoroughly approve of it.

MrNexx
2007-01-22, 11:10 AM
I was talking more about the argument advanced by Journey et al of 'archetypes' favoured by 2E and previous. I'm well aware that 3.x is more flexible than the older editions, and I thoroughly approve of it.

However, I still did not see 2nd edition as being terribly limiting; your classes were your skillsets, to an extent, but you could define yourself within them.

For example, one of my first characters was a half-elven "bard". Mage/Thief, stats of 10, 16, 7, 16, 10, 6. Acrobat, musician, magician, Harper... he wasn't limited from his character concept.

Far more limiting, in most games, was how you defined the world the characters lived in, and D&D has never been a good instrument for that, even in cases when they build a world for it (e.g. Dragonlance).

Journey
2007-01-22, 11:31 AM
Do you hear that sound out on the beach? The last wave just broke. Claiming that originality is impossible and that every story has already been told is the last-ditch defence of Joseph Campbell tragics and 15-year-old homeschooled fantasy authors. For you to even entertain that idea would imply that you don't read... well, anything good. At all. At least, not anything good that's been published since the delightfully ambiguous 'nowadays'.

DISCLAIMER: I realise that this post seems somewhat strident in tone. I blame it on my inability to ever say anything conciliatory. I don't intend this to be an attack on anybody's person or views, I just consider this to be my point of view. This topic's already fairly hostile and I don't want it to inch any closer to a flame war. <_<

One of these contradicts the other. You haven't the slightest clue as to what I've read or what I do read. Also, I have no feelings of hostility here; if you think it's hostile that's really your own perception.


I was talking more about the argument advanced by Journey et al of 'archetypes' favoured by 2E and previous. I'm well aware that 3.x is more flexible than the older editions, and I thoroughly approve of it.Variability isn't the same as flexibility.

Yakk
2007-01-22, 11:50 AM
There isn't a single original story idea in the world, anywhere. It's all been done, one way or another. Nowadays it's all about the packaging.

False. There are original story ideas, but it is possible to bend any story idea into "it is just Y" with enough balderdash.

And I suspect this was as true in Homer's age as it is today.

Don't get me wrong -- good original ideas are hard, and copying someone else's ideas is often much easier. That is because producing anything good when your competition is 6000+ years of human civilization is not a trivial task.

...

So I've met up with a neat archtyped skills based system. The archtype component is that your characer's starting skills are determined by what guild they are a part of, and learning a single new skill requires 3 months of game time (ie, something you can only do during downtime, between adventures).

Other than that, everything is skills based. But because the guilds are things like "Knights of the Church" and "Shadow Guardians of the Border" (actual guilds are setting-specific, not game-specific), your do get the starting archtype effect. But your characters abilities are determined by your stats, your abilities, your gear, and your social connections with various people and organizations in game.

As a neat little side, learning extra-special "class-like" moves requires not only mastery of the respective skill, but also the social standing in the organization that teaches it. (there are class-like moves that don't require being in an organization, and you can be a kick-ass character without them)

Premier
2007-01-22, 12:14 PM
As for Warhammer vs its predecessors, I don't really see a dichotomy there so much as two completely unrelated concepts. Warhammer is a concrete game with rules and a solidly structured 'engine', similar to Chess, Risk, or modern computer games, while wargames of the older school were really just grown-up versions of playing with toy soldiers.

Actually, wargames (as we use the term today) were originally used as a method of training army officers - the previously mentioned Kriegspiel being an eminent example. Their rule systems, rathen then just being "die roll instead of cowboy and indians argument" as you suggest, were highly detailed and abstract, detailing such elements as the time needed for an order to travel from the general to a specific unit, the amount of work an engineer team can accomplish in a day, or the wartime experience of a unit. So much so, in fact, that by the 1870's some senior officers already believed the rules were too copious and unwieldy, and started advocating more freeform styles!

So, even such early wargames were easily as abstracted and rules-specific as Warhammer. The main difference that I was pointing out previously is that unlike WH, WH40k and other relatively more mainstream wargames, historical wargames always have been and still are going through a great deal of rule debates and houserulings.


And it doesn't change the fact that Warhammer isn't much younger than D&D - it predates Second Edition AD&D and is hardly an example of a 'now vs then' situation. I don't really see how you're qualified to go on about 'back then' when you'd most likely have been eating paste in kindergarten at the time. Trying to connect Warhammer with the changes Wizards made to D&D with Third Edition is pointless, because there is no connection.

First, please don't resort to ad hominems by questioning my "qualifiedness" on the matter, especially when, for all we know, you don't hold a PhD in Game Design Theory, either. But just to humour you, I'm qualified to comment on 'back then' because A, I took the time and energy to read up on the stuff, and B, I regularly converse online with people who WERE around 'back then'.

Second, you appear to have misunderstood my earlier post. I cited the Warhammer/historical wargames comparison as a parallel to the houserules/universal rules dichotomy also appearing in D&D. It was simply another example of the same thing. There is obviously no direct cause and effect relationship between the dualism of wargames and the dualism of D&D editions, and I have never claimed otherwise, so please don't put words in my mouth by implying that I claimed a "connection". I didn't.

FdL
2007-01-23, 12:32 AM
Classes are archetypes. At it's most "cold", they are unavoidably "crunch+fluff".

I agree with the barbarian. It has always been a pet concern of mine. See, the problem is that the criteria for definition of the classes is not coherent. Barbarians are those who come from outside the hegemonic culture in the setting. And they rage. So according to this, with any nomadic, slightly underdeveloped native tribe, all of its population have the barbarian class... :p The least one could hope is that they multiclass a lot, so for example their shaman would be Brb/Clr, they would have a lot of Brb/Commoner, etc :)

This is an extreme example because it's too narrow, but I take it over saying that anyone who can rage is a barbarian. I remember one guy in other forum saying he had made a character who was part of the nobility but had learned a fighting style that allowed him to channel his rage. Not a barbarian in my book.

Still it's a very debatable topic, if I cared about it :) The fact is that archetypes have been carried since the beginning or more, and have survived several editions.

Good joke on the "Elf" class, like in Gauntlet (you had Wizard, Warrior, Valkyrie and Elf (?)). Same with D&D arcade, one was an "elf". :D

Gurgeh
2007-01-23, 06:59 AM
One of these contradicts the other. You haven't the slightest clue as to what I've read or what I do read.

Way to dodge my argument. I implied that there is a lot of good, original stuff out there in the world of fiction - and, to a lesser extent, in that of film and even videogames - and consequently if you think that there's no such thing as originality then you must not have read, seen or played any of these new, original works. It's a fairly standard rhetorical device and picking at its semantics makes it no less valid.


Their rule systems, rathen then just being "die roll instead of cowboy and indians argument" as you suggest, were highly detailed and abstract...

Yes, abstract - the polar opposite of a near-completely defined system like Warhammer. You seem to think that the word means the exact opposite of what it actually does. Nitpicking aside, I think we've got a case of apples and oranges. Traditional 'wargames' aren't really that - they're more historical re-creation with miniatures than games, with much more emphasis on 'physical' and historical versimilitude than on competition and achievement. Warhammer has more in common with chess than with traditional wargames and isn't meant to be an accurate representation of warfare. It's meant to be a fun, competitive game that ought to deliver victory to the better player, rather than to the force that was historically better-positioned or greater in number. It's much more of a game than traditional wargames, and therefore concepts like fairness and consistency are very important to it.


First, please don't resort to ad hominems by questioning my "qualifiedness" on the matter, especially when, for all we know, you don't hold a PhD in Game Design Theory, either. But just to humour you, I'm qualified to comment on 'back then' because A, I took the time and energy to read up on the stuff, and B, I regularly converse online with people who WERE around 'back then'.

The last time I checked, Ad Hominem was using a direct attack on the proponent of an argument in order to discredit the argument. Since your argument was written as if from personal experience, I see no reason why questioning your personal experience was out of line. I meant no offence, I just wanted to illustrate that we're likely not the most qualified to comment on things that happened well before our time - and 'I met a guy who was around back then' isn't exactly the best way to back up your argument.


Second, you appear to have misunderstood my earlier post. I cited the Warhammer/historical wargames comparison as a parallel to the houserules/universal rules dichotomy also appearing in D&D. It was simply another example of the same thing.

Except for the fact that... it's not. D&D is a role-playing game while Warhammer is a tabletop wargame - a turn-based strategy one, in particular. The objective of D&D is... well, very different for different people, but it is not the same as the objective of Warhammer, which is for one player to defeat the other. A game like Warhammer demands a rule system which is fair and consistent, because there's no point trying to win if the result is determined by random house rules and the opinions of the other player. In a competitive game, the rules must be absolute and they must apply equally to all players, because otherwise the winner will not necessarily be the better player. For that same reason, balance between the different armies is vitally important (and was one of the big problems with the army lists introduced late in Sixth Edition's life, as they pretty much overwhelmed the middle-period ones). If the players can't agree on the rules for, say, charging a flank with a unit of skirmishers, then games will degenerate into shouting matches or simply be decided by roll-offs to determine which player gets their way.

That sort of thing doesn't really matter as much in D&D - things like the horrible overpoweredness of full casters, the lack of defensive bonuses as levels accumulate and the relative uselessness of multiclass casters are fairly irrelevant to the enjoyment of the game, because a well-roleplayed D&D campaign will be fun even if the wizard is single-handedly responsible for winning 90% of the encounters. None of the players should be trying to 'win' the game, and they certainly shouldn't be trying to do so at the expense of the other players.

Having a strictly defined set of rules is pretty much a prerequisite of a good wargame, while it's entirely optional and often detrimental to an RPG. So no, I don't see how the difference between Warhammer and earlier wargames is in any way related to the difference between D&D 3.5 and older versions. The first is a necessary improvement to its genre, while the second is just a different way of playing it.

Premier
2007-01-23, 09:04 AM
Yes, abstract - the polar opposite of a near-completely defined system like Warhammer. You seem to think that the word means the exact opposite of what it actually does.

I think I made my point quite clear and I feel it's being ignored in favour of semantic nitpicking. You said that WH has a solidly structured ruleset while historical wargames are just "playing with tin soldiers", implying that their rules were more haphazard and primitive. This I have corrected by stating that historical wargames were used as serious military training tools and they had rulesets easily as solidly structured and detailed as WH - if you doubt the veracity of this claim, then please check out the articles here (http://www.kriegsspiel.org.uk) for more information. Please either concede this point, or present an counterargument.


Nitpicking aside, I think we've got a case of apples and oranges. Traditional 'wargames' aren't really that - they're more historical re-creation with miniatures than games, with much more emphasis on 'physical' and historical versimilitude than on competition and achievement. Warhammer has more in common with chess than with traditional wargames and isn't meant to be an accurate representation of warfare.Historical wargames stopped being "historical re-creations" the moment they started involving hypothetical scenarios. In this aspect (that is, in that they simulate hypothetical situations) they are exactly like Warhammer. The real difference is not that they're two completely different types of activity (which they aren't - if they were, then we could also make the absurd claim that Settlers of Catan is not a boardgame because it's not played on a single board but on a bunch of small tiles lying on the table), but that they're a single type of activity ("wargames") with different emphasis. As you yourself stated very correctly, historical wargames place emphasis on the accuracy of simulation, while WH and the like place it on ease of use. However, they'll still the same type of game, only different subgenres.


It's meant to be a fun, competitive game that ought to deliver victory to the better player, rather than to the force that was historically better-positioned or greater in number.You incorrectly imply that historical wargames - meaning rules systems used to resolve hypothetical scenarios with historically accurate parameters and not meaning the recreation of actual historical engagements - feature uneven sides where the winner is pretty much predetermined. Incorrect. Historical wargames can be about assymetric forces - just like how you can have 'final stand'-type scenarios in WH -, but are not mainly about those. Your 'usual' hist. wargame scenario, just like your 'usual' WH scenario, features roughly evenly matched forces and equal chances - only it's not Elves vs. Dwarves but Prussians vs. French, and the rules are generally more complicated.


It's much more of a game than traditional wargames, and therefore concepts like fairness and consistency are very important to it.

And the same concepts are also very important to hist. wargames, too. The only difference is that WH has a comparatively simple ruleset designed to ensure fairness and consistency, while hist. wargames have more complicated rulesets designed to ensure the same.


Since your argument was written as if from personal experience, I see no reason why questioning your personal experience was out of line. I meant no offence, I just wanted to illustrate that we're likely not the most qualified to comment on things that happened well before our time - and 'I met a guy who was around back then' isn't exactly the best way to back up your argument.

Answering in PM to keep thread on topic.



Except for the fact that... it's not.
[snip]Some of these statements I agree with, other I don't, but don't wish to derail the thread by responding to those here. I'd just like to point out that most of this is going off on a tangent and is not really addressing the point I have originally made. Namely that both wargaming (including historical games and WH and the like) and D&D editions can be divided along two design philosophies (houserules vs. canonical rules).

Gurgeh
2007-01-23, 09:53 AM
*shrugs*

Isn't the point of the internet to go off on a tangent? ;)

You make some good points and I'm too tired to respond properly at the moment - I'll reply via PM as per your initiative.

And the gist of my objection to your original point is that while the split between houserules and 'canonical' rules is something that doesn't really have any advantages on either side beyond personal preference in a roleplaying game, it's vitally important for a competitive game to have canonical rules, and it's therefore unfair to compare the two activities along those lines since each is affected in a very different way by rules.

Grizzt
2007-01-31, 12:29 PM
I kinda like the skills system in Fable and in other games. If someone likes fighters, he puts skill points it the fighter skills. A touch of magic is some skills away. I prefer trickery to magic and i like brute force, no problem, I just put skills in rogue and in fighter. Its very easy to use.

TimeWizard
2007-01-31, 06:49 PM
Trying to avoid arguments on the internet is like trying to avoid cars on the freeway. It may discredit my character something petty, but I'm willing to admit that I enjoy BESM D20, which has the Adventurer class. Essentially, everything is worth a certain amout of character points, from DnD's class abilities to bonus feats and even some spells and the like. The Adventurer class has a simple progression, +5 character points per level. There you go, ultra customization. It's also worth noting that the Adventurer has a net 6% less character point value then other classes, but it should be offset by customization.