the prime funciton of each class

[shadzar]

The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

hey look mechanics described in the fluff.

The druid is a priest of nature and guardian of the wilderness, be it forest, plains, or jungle.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

look no mechanics mentioned

(bolded mine)
Man, wat? There's a fucking huge mechanic mentioned right there in your quote. Are you just trolling?

druid is listed in the priest section of the book..so would you expect it to reference another class and say "cleric of nature"?

Warrior, Wizard, Priest Rogue.. those are you class groups for 2nd. check it out some time.. you might learn something.

2nd also tried to overexert the weapon specialization is why i say "expert of weapons" is a mechanic because it furthered weapon proficiencies provided in 1e.

neither was a requirement for the classes to use, but the "of nature" gave a sense of why have a druid?

it was an example of a "Priest of a Specific Mythoi" aka specialty priest that had never existed while magic-user previously had the counterpart of illusionist as a variant class. 2nd just gave both casters ability to be specialists.

this doesnt mean a druid has to follow 2nd or any other and BE a priest.. thus why i left off spell abilities in my description, because there is no reason a wizard couldnt be a druid.. the only thing that denotes a druids purpose in ALL forms.. is the link to nature...again no defined mechanics, as a druid could be a fighter/mage mix.. who knows.

its prime function dealt with nature.

[shadzar]

I think, if you really wanted to talk about the purposes of the classes, instead of stupid words like tree hugger and magic user, would be to spell it out into answers to specific question:

1) How do they win fights?
2) Where does there power come from?
3) How do they deal with non combat challenges. (Depending on the challenge, some people should be allowed to say, "let other people take care of it." But you damn well can't say that for everything.)
4) What sort of motivations do they normally have? (Though obviously players should be free to toss out aspects of this whenever they want, IE, not all druids give a shit about murdering trees.)

these are all good for designing the mechanics and refining a class...but WHY is it there among the other classes and in the game itself is where you should start.

if the game never existed and you were designing these things called classes.. WHY would you put a druid in for example?

would you list the why as "shapechanges into a bear or eagle 3 times a week"?

you cant bother with how they function, until you know WHY they are there to begin with. WHAT is the function?

[nockermensch]

druid is listed in the priest section of the book..so would you expect it to reference another class and say "cleric of nature"?

Warrior, Wizard, Priest Rogue.. those are you class groups for 2nd. check it out some time.. you might learn something.

2nd edition was my first RPG. I still have my heavily battered 2nd edition PHB, so don't try that. I know what a "priest" is in the context of D&D, that was why I had that bolded. The description is telling you that the druid is a divine caster with a nature theme. Compare this with mine "Druid = Green mage".

2nd also tried to overexert the weapon specialization is why i say "expert of weapons" is a mechanic because it furthered weapon proficiencies provided in 1e.

YEAH, RIGHT. You recognize a mechanic's description when you see one. Why skip over the "priest of nature" and say that the druid's description lacks mechanics?!

this doesnt mean a druid has to follow 2nd or any other and BE a priest.. thus why i left off spell abilities in my description, because there is no reason a wizard couldnt be a druid.. the only thing that denotes a druids purpose in ALL forms.. is the link to nature...again no defined mechanics, as a druid could be a fighter/mage mix.. who knows.

its prime function dealt with nature.

I ... uh ...

Damn, go suck a barrel of cocks, dude. You just said that a cleric with the plant and animal domains is a "druid", and so is a ranger, and so is a battle sorcerer that picks spells with a polymorphing or weather theming, or a straight fighter or rogue or wizard with ranks in profession:park ranger. Your definition, just as the memetic goggles, does nothing; it's useless for any purpose other than self-congratulating, masturbatory I HAS A DEFINITION goal.

Look, do you know what's the same thing of saying that the druid's schtick is that he "protects nature"? It means exactly the same (nothing) from a design point as saying that a paladin's schtick is "protects innocents".

[Foxwarrior]

a paladin's schtick is "protects innocents".

Can we role-protect that? I don't want any of the other classes stepping on the Paladin's toes here.

[Ice9]

"Casts spells" or even "casts arcane/divine spells" is a pretty useless designation. What do Wizards do? Cast arcane spells. What are arcane spells? The things Wizards cast. "Red, Blue and Black" is a working description, although still kinda broad.

To make it meaningful, you've got to say what "arcane spells" do that other things don't, and what they can't do that other things can.

[JonSetanta]

a paladin's schtick is "protects innocents".

Can we role-protect that? I don't want any of the other classes stepping on the Paladin's toes here.

Gods forbid the Cleric should do a better job of whatever it is Paladins are supposed to do, which is exactly how it goes.

[OgreBattle]

Fighter: Cunningly Brutal
Thief: Brutally Cunning
Wizard: Wierdboy
Cleric: Painboss
Paladin: Dead 'ard
Ranger: More Dakka/Choppier
Barbarian: WAAAAGH
Druid: Dem snake bite gitz

This is the best and most all encompassing way of looking at the D&D classes.

[Whipstitch]

If I were rejiggering D&D here's a rough outline of the shticks I would attempt to emphasize for the base classes.

Fighter: Excels at interdicting movement, interrupting actions and absorbing physical punishment.

Barbarian: Hits critters hard and can bull through physical obstacles and mind-affecting abilities by getting really angry.

Rogue: Can detect and deal with entrenched defenses like traps and locked doors with minimal resources or preparation. Deals heavy damage but only with the aid of flanks or surprise.

Ranger: Rangers use toxins and their animal companion to make life miserable for their enemies. Excel at providing flanks in two places at once, hampering enemy movement and dealing a steady stream of damage from just about any range.

Monks: Highly mobile but I'd actually make them charge monkeys so they can get something out of it--I'd want them to flying kick people's heads clean off rather than just suck ass like they do in 3.x. I have the hardest time with them because this description is basically the same as that of the barbarian, they just explain it as being super disciplined instead of foaming at the mouth.

Bard: Inspire and demoralize through illusions and song while still being half-decent warriors.

Clerics: Excel at healing wounds, divination, area denial wards and banishing.

Paladins: remove/bestow diseases and curses, absorb a lot of punishment and smite the hell out of things.

Druids: Terrain manipulation and shape shifting.

Wizard: Save or suck and summoning monsters/binding outsiders.

Sorcerer: Mind manipulations and blasty force/elemental spells.

[shadzar]

Fighter: Cunningly Brutal
Thief: Brutally Cunning
Wizard: Wierdboy
Cleric: Painboss
Paladin: Dead 'ard
Ranger: More Dakka/Choppier
Barbarian: WAAAAGH
Druid: Dem snake bite gitz

This is the best and most all encompassing way of looking at the D&D classes.

so red paint makes the barbarian go faster eh?

[tussock]

Prime function.

Fighter: Kill monsters.
Wizard: Win at D&D, occasionally.
Cleric: Whatever went wrong, didn't, nor will it again.
Thief: None of that, but gets the diamonds (and the girl) anyway.

[souran]

Fighter: Cunningly Brutal
Thief: Brutally Cunning
Wizard: Wierdboy
Cleric: Painboss
Paladin: Dead 'ard
Ranger: More Dakka/Choppier
Barbarian: WAAAAGH
Druid: Dem snake bite gitz

This is the best and most all encompassing way of looking at the D&D classes.

So wait is the new way to talk to Shadzar to repeat meaningless crap back at him? Its a decently cunning plan.

My plan was to just try and type out the noise my 8 year old newphew makes when he picks up two of my miniatures and smacks them together.

[shadzar]

its orks form warhammer speak.

just search "more dakka", and you will understand.

also it dumbfounds me to see barbarian listed as a class, as it is more like "nomad" and type of society, about as much as druid.

at least druid as a class i can understand somewhat but not really as a nature priest as it functions in D&D.

likewise ranks in an army such as Warlord..or even thief make little sense as they are things ANYONE could do.

but with the thief skill selection of AD&D it makes sense to have them separate rather than drop in the thief skills to another character. though ALL characters can use them...so why have someone specialize in them?

[erik]

just search "more dakka", and you will understand.

Oh god, you're right Souran. It is how he communicates.

likewise ranks in an army such as Warlord..or even thief make little sense as they are things ANYONE could do.

I... actually don't totally disagree with this! I didn't include thief as one of the 4 archtypes (warrior, and separating casters into 3 groupings of spell effects) since I felt that bypassing traps and sneaking around really isn't something that should be a niche that only some people can handle. They might handle it in different ways, but still requiring a rogue to deal with traps feels dumb.

I still might throw in a "Sneak" class archtype to make it 5, and tweak some of the guile ones to be more social oriented than thiefy. I just wouldn't expect a sneak to be required for particular challenges. No role should be indispensable. Likewise, any class should be able to learn some magic.

I think Warlords can be useful as a niche in having martial characters who grant buffs to their allies. That is something meaningfully different then being a direct combatant.

[edit: There! I went back and made those changes to my previous post, adding in Sneak and doing other changes =-) ]

[shadzar]

[edit: There! I went back and made those changes to my previous post, adding in Sneak and doing other changes =-) ]

still trying to understand your skins... but see what you are going for in a sense.

seems like "mastery" levels in a class like journeyman, apprentice, novice, tradesman, master.. etc

not sure what the sneak would do, but can see WHY you think it could be a class of sorts.

[Parthenon]

I think I get what this is actually about. Forget existing classes and existing names, forget any existing split of arcane and divine, and instead think about the very basic types of characters that need to exist.

So, I'd have

• Dumbass Damage Dealer. Hits stuff with a big stick, shoots them with a bow or repeatedly casts damaging magic at them. Extremely simple so people can be given the class and play it. [e.g. Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, archer Ranger, Warmage]
• Backstabbing Thieving Git. Takes advantage of their teammates positions, the enemy's weaknesses, and their own tricks to devastate the opponent. [e.g. Rogue, Assassin, Beguiler]
• Meatshield. Has actual useful abilities that lets it stop enemies and protect others, with an absolute fuckton of health or damage mitigation. [None exist currently]
• Cheerleader. Buffs allies with magic while rearranging the battlefield. [Buff and support focused wizard, spellcaster Druid, possibly a summoner Cleric]
• Indecisive. Uses magic or other powers to alter their ability, so that they can be a melee or ranged attacker or a backstabbing git, with a few others. Never quite as good as the main class. [e.g. Cleric, Bard, Druid]

There may be others- maybe a summoner who acts like a pokemon master. And of course you'd actually want multiple classes for each, each with a theme and a schtick.

I wouldn't give any specific class the debuff or SoD role though, and spread out the debuffs among the classes. So if the Dumbass Fighter attacks the same enemy two rounds in a row they give the enemy a debuff, while if the Meatshield stops someone they get a debuff as well, or if the enemy moves onto an area the Cheerleader has trapped they get a debuff.

[erik]

still trying to understand your skins... but see what you are going for in a sense.

seems like "mastery" levels in a class like journeyman, apprentice, novice, tradesman, master.. etc

not sure what the sneak would do, but can see WHY you think it could be a class of sorts.

Basically:

Class= What mechanically you can do as your primary raison d'etre.

Skins= Flavor associated with executing the primary mechanic and provides some secondary mechanics.

Brute= More emphasis on damage dealing
Guile= More emphasis on social knacks
Nature= More emphasis on wilderness skills
Profane= More emphasis on eeeeevil knacks
Sacred= More emphasis on holy shit
Studied= More emphasis on knowledge

At the end of the day, a warrior is mostly stabbing things, an arcanist is mostly blasting things, a conjurer is mostly doing battle field control, a shaman is mostly (de)buffing things, and a sneak is mostly stabbing things.

The sneak and warrior definitely have overlap and are doing things slightly differently, which is why I kind of wanted to make one a skin of the other... meh. Maybe Sneak should be a skin rather than a class. Hrm.

Sneak Sacred and Sneak Studied are lame.

I probably should tweak things some more.

[the_taken]

If you make it so that Power Sources are also divorced from combat roll and skin, then you can create even more classes. There's now 28 classes in your list, erik. Adding in the prime elemental planes alone inflates the number of classes to 196. (Fire, Water, Earth, Wind, Negative, Positive, Shadow).

Of course, not everyone wants to be limited to Elemental classes. Some will want a God's blessing as their power source, or just hard work... wow, that really increases the amount classes. That's 28 classes for each new power source!

[erik]

I was thinking elemental crap would be more like a feat you could take on top of some classes, adding something like a [element] tag to some attacks and maybe having a few [element] abilities.

[edit: posting was interrupted by diaper changes and had to cut it short...]

I didn't feel that elemental bits were necessarily worth an entire skin, but rather a 3rd tier of description more in line with feats. I reckoned you would have an option of taking one 3rd tier descriptor that grants maybe some minor abilities and may add a tag to some attacks or defenses.

Demi-races: Half-whatevs- not necessarily from birth of questionable parentage, could have been from a magical ritual or a lucky cereal box prize.
Elemental [Air, Earth, Fire, Water]
Outsider [Celestial, Infernal, Giant Frog, Polyhedral, Tentacled Pinhead]
Demi-human [Draconic, Giant, Vermin, Construct, Ooze, Plant, Undead, Beast]

Basically something where you are adding bit to a class but a [Plant] Assassin is still doing the same stuff as a [Fire] Assassin, just with different underwear.

Other feats would be likewise character defining choices. I reckon the trick is not having feats overlap too much and making sure that you can't pile up enough bonuses to break the RNG.

[Username17]

I think I need to interject and note that shit like "doing damage" and "getting hit" are not fucking protectable roles. They not only cannot be protected (since anyone can swing a stick or get struck with one), but it's not even desirable to try.

Offensive shticks that are protectable are things like:

• Doing Damage to back row targets.
• Doing Damage to puzzle monsters.
• Doing Damage to groups of enemies.

Shit like that. The thing that makes you stick out is not that you can attack the enemy, but that you can attack the enemy in a way that other characters can't replicate. Or at least, in a way that they can't replicate easily or by rolling high.

Whether something is arbitrarily divine, arcane, psionic, or just based on supreme faith in the heart of the cards is entirely a flavor concern. The question is what they actually do. And there are a fuck tonne of things you could do.

-Username17

[shadzar]

Offensive shticks that are protectable are things like:

1. Doing Damage to back row targets.
2. Doing Damage to puzzle monsters.
3. Doing Damage to groups of enemies.

Shit like that. The thing that makes you stick out is not that you can attack the enemy, but that you can attack the enemy in a way that other characters can't replicate.

-Username17

has there been a D&D class that could actually do any of those, that another class could NOT do?

Fighter can hit a group pf enemies...just his selection is to those in a specific range (reach for 3rd i think it was), while cleric could turn undead, which makes his group a little more deciding, but still restricted to what that group is.

every class has had a way or method to pick what targets they select/attack and how many, so i dont see how that can be protectable?

[Archmage]

"I kill groups of undead better than anyone else" is a protectable gimmick.

"i'm the only one with an attack that reliably hurts golems" is a protectable but arguably too narrow gimmick.

And DnD fighters have never been able to perform some area attack and efficiently knock down a dozen orcs packed into a 20-foot radius circle...or at the extreme end kill a hundred enemies when surrounded by an army of lemures. "AoE cleanup of weak or damaged foes" is plausibly a protectable gimmick.

[Maxus]

In fact, Shad, they don't. There is some role protection enforced by available class options.

I know you don't like 3.x, but, fuck it, it'll serve for an example.

A fighter can, on, take Whirlwind Attack in 3.5. That's the extent of his multi-enemy targeting. He makes one attack roll and then compares that to the AC of all enemies in his reach (usually 5 feet out to each side). He has to make a roll to see if he does damage at all.

A wizard can cast Fireball. Everything within 20 feet of the chosen point has to make a roll to see if they take less damage. Oh, and the wizard can do it within 600 feet by the time he can use it.

Those two things aren't comparable at all.

Rogues have a third option--do high damage to a single enemy at a time.

[shadzar]

just because it hasnt been done YET< doesnt mean it is protectable.

you might as well then say a fighter can pick only one person to devote all damage to, while wizards them must choose a small group to spread some damage over.

"target selection", which is all this boils down to, is no more protectable than "hits things", since everyone can select their target, and everyone can hit things.

how many Fighter v. Wizard arguements have been had because a wizard has more area effect (AoE for 3rd people). it doesnt make that protectable, just that someone needs to get a way for Gimli to land on the bridge leading into Helm's Deep and actually take out those 6 or so orcs surrounding him...but on a flat surface rather than just knocking them to their death via falling off the bridge.

it IS something that has been missing from the fighter, and why i mentioned a fighter needs to hit things HARD so it does actually do something "like" Whirlwind that Gimli did.

@Archmage specifically...

targeting a single group or type of monster isnt protectable. which class is the one that can hurt monsters with cold steel? oh right.. ALL of them.

clerics have a "favored enemy"... where have i heard this before? Rangers... AD&D, 3rd.. i recall both had this. clerics just dont get to pick their favored enemy. as fas as undead go anyway.. Necromancers are wizards that target undead, just they do the opposite of a cleric and create/heal the undead, rather than destroy them.

Lich and cleric have ALWAYS existed, and Lich may be a classification of monster, but really ANY race of a wizard class could become one...so targeting undead as a specialty isnt and never has been protected.

so golems and undead.. ARE too narrow for a gimmick. elves hate dwarfs as flavor... that doesnt have to be protected either. (aside from being too much into JRRT)

to borrow form 3rd also, and slightly 2nd.. "templates" are what turns a wizard of ANY type into a Lich, so it isnt a monster in and of itself, except for its classification as undead wizard. specializing in necromancy to target undead (like clerics target undead REALLY good) doesnt change that he is jsut a wizard and a Necromancer class needs to exist. just to flavor the wizard to give the "feel" of using undead makes him a Necromancer, as other wizards and the cleric could also target undead, so HE too isnt protected to be a "necromancer"...its just an adjective/synonym for wizard.

[shadzar]

pulled this out on its own

Rogues have a third option--do high damage to a single enemy at a time.

this also isnt protectible for a rogue, because rogues are about the least protectable in a game of grave robbers. wizards can target a single enemy and do high damage, clerics can, and fighters can.

the Fighter should be the one that does it with weapons, as that is his device for doing damage, while wizards employ arcane devices, and clerics divine devices.

if fighters had more design focus on weapon damage, then there wouldnt be a need for these pseudo-fighter classes Bard, Rogue, Paladin, Warlord (seriously yelling to heal someone? when did D&D become Peter Pan, and we are trying to save Tinkerbell by clapping our hands to heal her?), etc.

________________________________
i don't believe in Bards.
i don't believe in Warlords.

i hope those fairy classes just died when i said that and nobody claps for them to come back.

[Archmage]

I gave specific examples of protectable gimmicks. They CAN be protected. The fact that they are not necessarily protected does not invalidate my point. Neither does overlap like "both cleric and ranger can be specialized to kill undead," and it is worth noting that the means by which clerics exercise their undead slayer expertise is mechanically quite different from the way rangers do it.

Why did I reply to you again?