Why does 4th Edition have classes anyway?

[virgil]

How is it a bad thing for the game to not have your characters know that vrocks cast telekinesis? That's a curveball for many players, who don't universally read monster abilities, and many of those same players disagree with the concept of doing so out of fear for metagaming (their character wouldn't know, not having any Knowledge*Planes, so why should they?).

I don't consider the DM being an arse because he's using the Monster Manual IV for an adventure and I haven't read it before.

Or are we talking about something more fundamental than this?

[K]

You know what a Shy Guy, a Hammer Brother, a Super Gumba, and so on all do, because they do the same stuff every time. When you go to a new level and see a monster for the first time it will do something unexpected, and then your character will fucking die. But that's OK in the computer game, because all that means is that you try again and this time you know what is coming. In a pen and paper role playing game that shit is totally unacceptable, and the learning curve is produced by reading the book rather than getting your ass beaten over and over again.

When the computer does something "unexpected" (which is to say: outside the established conventions of the game heretofore), that's not "cheating" because the computer is just running a single program dispassionately. But when David A. Hargrave throws you a curve ball it's literally just the DM being an ass hole. He knows what you're doing and what you're prepared for, so when he trots out a monster that is fucking with you, that's him fucking with you. My father played with that guy, and described the experience as infuriating.

Yeah, the Marioverse is surreal, but if you're playing it pen and paper you get to look up how Boos and Bullet Bills are statted in the game. You know what they are capable of. Just as thoroughly as if you'd run trial and error through the levels a few times to get the knack of it. In face to face gaming, you don't have time for dry run through bullshit to obtain system mastery, you have to let people read ahead.

But in the Mario universe you only have one life that ends when you get hit once(or twice, if you are big and don't fall down a hole). That's fundamentally different from every other game where you have piles of HPs and are expected to take a dozen hits before you fall.

Pile of HPs=plenty of chances to learn from mistakes. Reading the manual just increases your power... it doesn't make for a more playable game.

Heck, in the last four campaigns I played in we never fought the same thing twice and I still never felt that the game was unplayable because of this. Every version of Neverwinter nights is full of "DM Special" monsters and I never died because I got surprised by something; I died because I got one-shotted or I didn't rest/expend unreplacable resources when I got the chance.

DM douchebaggery of the type you are talking about is more a symptom of overly-specialized characters than anything else. Of course the party full of Rogues feel like they are being personally fucked with when they have to fight the adventure full of only sneak-immune monsters, but that's a result of the DM not caring whether they get to use their powers to fullest and not anything else.

Combats in cinema are full of the enemies doing surprising things, then the heroes adapt and win. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want a game like that; surprises are fun and adapting tactics is more satisfying than taking your objective numbers and reducing their objective numbers.

[RandomCasualty2]

But when David A. Hargrave throws you a curve ball it's literally just the DM being an ass hole. He knows what you're doing and what you're prepared for, so when he trots out a monster that is fucking with you, that's him fucking with you.

What?

The moment he makes a hill giant psionic or throws a variant monster at you that you haven't seen before, he's being an asshole?

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. The DM needs to be able to create new monsters to keep the game fresh. In fact, if the PCs know everything about every monster, the game is pretty damn boring. And hell, the DM can just conceal what the monster is by using descriptions instead of just saying "It's a troll." And I do that all the time, reflavoring monster descriptions and the like.

Are you saying a DM can't think outside the box at all, and has to present his PCs with only stock monsters that have boring and predictable abilities, because surprises of any kind are bullshit?

[Username17]

Are you saying a DM can't think outside the box at all, and has to present his PCs with only stock monsters that have boring and predictable abilities, because surprises of any kind are bullshit?

Yes.

Or at least, so long as "surprises" means that monsters are pulling out abilities that there is no reason to believe that they have, that's always bullshit. It's just like moving a knight diagonally or moving a rook through your own pieces.

"The box" is the game the players and the DM agreed to play. Thinking outside of it is cheating.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

Or at least, so long as "surprises" means that monsters are pulling out abilities that there is no reason to believe that they have, that's always bullshit. It's just like moving a knight diagonally or moving a rook through your own pieces.

"The box" is the game the players and the DM agreed to play. Thinking outside of it is cheating.

-Username17

Let me see if I follow. If you encounter a blob creature, it's okay if it squeezes through cracks, crawls up the wall, squirts acid, and divides into two blob creatures, because those are things we expect from 'blobs.' It's not okay if the blob throws a Color Spray, though... unless it was wearing a pointy hat, or some other mark of wizarding... or the players could otherwise have reasonably deduced that the blobs were developed enough to have class levels in general.

Is that about right, or am I missing something?

[virgil]

I'm curious as to what you mean, in regards to a normal D&D game, Frank. Is a brand new MM thinking outside the box (especially if only the DM has it), or even custom monsters? Is an elven wizard using a hat of disguise to look like a dwarven defender cheating and will hurt the game?

[Cynic]

I'm curious as to what you mean, in regards to a normal D&D game, Frank. Is a brand new MM thinking outside the box (especially if only the DM has it), or even custom monsters? Is an elven wizard using a hat of disguise to look like a dwarven defender cheating and will hurt the game?

No, that can't be what he's saying. Because it's the same as Bugs bunny painting a railway tunnel on a mountain wall to fool Yosemite Sam.

Maybe, it's not the idea of the Vrock casting Telekinesis. Maybe, it's the blob casting telekinesis for no apparent reason. Are we talking about throwing on abilities on monsters for no apparent reason? That's a gimme. Am I missing something just like everyone else.

[Koumei]

Let me see if I follow. If you encounter a blob creature, it's okay if it squeezes through cracks, crawls up the wall, squirts acid, and divides into two blob creatures, because those are things we expect from 'blobs.' It's not okay if the blob throws a Color Spray, though... unless it was wearing a pointy hat, or some other mark of wizarding... or the players could otherwise have reasonably deduced that the blobs were developed enough to have class levels in general.

Is that about right, or am I missing something?

I think that about covers it. So it's fine for the DM to have a new dinosaur approach when you're used to the triceratops, pachycephalosaurus and pterodactyl. This one has powerful legs, very sharp claws and a face full of sharp teeth. Cool, it can probably run fast, and might have pounce, powerful charge or even both. It possibly has rake attacks as well as a bite, and there might be an improved grab in there somewhere.

And that's fine - it's not in the book, you haven't seen it before, but by looking at it you know what it should do, and it does that. But if it starts flying (with those wings it doesn't have) and spitting fireballs all over the place, that's getting stupid - unless other dinosaurs suggested that elemental expolodey powers were normal for these things. If it calls the dead fossils up to fight for it in a powerful display of necromancy, that's bullshit.

However K's idea of "exposed brain = the Hulk is psionic" can work. It's a visual cue so you know what you're doing and what the fuck is going on.

[RandomCasualty2]

Or at least, so long as "surprises" means that monsters are pulling out abilities that there is no reason to believe that they have, that's always bullshit. It's just like moving a knight diagonally or moving a rook through your own pieces.

"The box" is the game the players and the DM agreed to play. Thinking outside of it is cheating.

That doesn't make any sense at all. While consistency is nice, you don't want the entire game being totally predictable. That'd be boring as fuck. So you couldn't have a bugbear monk unless he specifically wore a sign or marker on him that said "monk." Otherwise having him be awesome at unarmed combat would be some kind of unfair surprise? Seriously, I mean unless you'd encountered an aboleth before, there's no reason to expect the fish to be able to dominate you with psionics. Basically what you're saying is that the game has to be ridiculously dumbed down so that everything is exactly as it appears, otherwise the DM is cheating.

All I can say is... that sounds like a very boring game and overall a very horrible idea. Way to totally suck the lifeblood out of RPGs in general.

That sort of consistency is nice for competitive games, because it makes it easier to rate players... but for RPGs... no fucking way.

[Draco_Argentum]

Or at least, so long as "surprises" means that monsters are pulling out abilities that there is no reason to believe that they have, that's always bullshit. It's just like moving a knight diagonally or moving a rook through your own pieces.

So every wizard ever who isn't a blaster. Spell selection has no visual cues and can do some plenty freaky stuff even with core only. Then the next wizard does completely different freaky stuff.

[Username17]

Or at least, so long as "surprises" means that monsters are pulling out abilities that there is no reason to believe that they have, that's always bullshit. It's just like moving a knight diagonally or moving a rook through your own pieces.

So every wizard ever who isn't a blaster. Spell selection has no visual cues and can do some plenty freaky stuff even with core only. Then the next wizard does completely different freaky stuff.

Yes. One of the reasons that D&D magic is so dumb is because everything it does is bullshit unfair. Or rather, that because the available role of "humanoid adventurer" covers so much ground within the game that there's no real tactical planning that can take place around it. Every character has the ability to have "spells" (yes, even Fighters using the amazing powers of belts, hats, capes, and codpieces that cast the damn things on their behalf) and "spells" do "stuff." That means that literally every single character and enemy has the role of "does stuff" regardless of what their nominal class or appearance is.

Good role protection would arbitrarily divide up abilities into something that made a consistent and internal sense, and then portion them out. When you go up against a Cape you expect them to fight with some combination of strength moves and energy blasts. And they'll individually have enough selections off the Cape list, and the Cape list will be bg enough that they'll be able to potentially surprise you in a manner which is still fair. Maybe the Cape you're fighting does a flyby where they strafe you with energy beams. Maybe they grab and toss you. But they don't summon a wall of iron or turn their opponents nto sheep. D&D could have that sort of thing by going the route of the old-school Illusionist, where maybe every type of magician had their own proprietary magic. Even Tome of Battle was a step in the right direction as far as that went (although barn doors and cows being what they were, it was far too little far too late to make any real difference).

So you couldn't have a bugbear monk unless he specifically wore a sign or marker on him that said "monk." Otherwise having him be awesome at unarmed combat would be some kind of unfair surprise?

Monks aren't unique enough in D&D. The things they do are replicable and overlap with what everyone else does. The role isn't different from the "adventurer" role that every other humanoid character has, so the fact that he is or is not a monk specifically doesn't make any difference or sense.

And that's the problem. I mean, it's even OK for you to be genuinely unsure whether this new guy is a Blaster or a Cape before he starts doing things. But once he does start doing things you should be able to grok what he has done and extrapolate to what he could do. In a D&D sense, once a Bugbear Monk starts pulling Kung Fu moves, that should clue you in that he can and will use other Kung Fu abilities which in turn should be interestingly and importantly different from the other abilities that other people who don't do kung fu do instead.

---

It's not super important how you divide up abilities so that people can have rational expectations about upcoming actions. But it is of paramount importance that you divide up abilities in some consistent fashion.

There are more magic systems than settings. But your magic system should carve things up in a manner such that the different kinds of magic are different in a manner that is identifiable in game and extrapolatable in function by players. Failure to do so is the biggest single problem with the D&D magic system. It is the reason that there are no meaningful or consistent limitations on magic as a whole, which in turn is the reason that druids own you in the face so damn hard.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

Frank's definately got the hard end of this debate. D&D uses the hodge-podge method of ability assignment so much that people pretty much expect it.

That said I don't have a problem with it. Druids own you hard in the face because A) They get lots of different abilities and B) some of them are broken in and of themselves. Someone like a fighter gets less abilities and less impressive brokenness.

I don't think some necromancers being able to sword you in the face and some being able to entangle or whatever is a balance problem. Its a thematic issue.

[Bigode]

Yeah, I am the guy who prefers to keep example use to a bare minimum, but in that case it seems the best: in D&D 3.5, both the druid and the beguiler are stupidly versatile and awesome classes, but they sure don't occupy the same ability niches (exactly, at least). What's the problem with the mere fact that they're hard to predict?

[RandomCasualty2]

And that's the problem. I mean, it's even OK for you to be genuinely unsure whether this new guy is a Blaster or a Cape before he starts doing things. But once he does start doing things you should be able to grok what he has done and extrapolate to what he could do. In a D&D sense, once a Bugbear Monk starts pulling Kung Fu moves, that should clue you in that he can and will use other Kung Fu abilities which in turn should be interestingly and importantly different from the other abilities that other people who don't do kung fu do instead.

Well basically this means that you're totally against multiclassing as a concept. It seems that you're saying that if you cast spells, then basically you can't fight with a sword and that well balanced monsters like pit fiends or solars are totally out the window and that all creatures need to be specific with one role.

But at high level, aren't those monsters the ones that don't even work? Specters can be nullified by a simple death ward, colossal scorpions can be beaten by a fly spell. If anything, 3.5 has showed us that high level creatures really need multiple schticks.

[Orion]

Yes! Yes, multiclassing as a concept is deeply stupid, and has always been stupid, and will always be stupid. The entire fucking point of having classes is to say that somebody who is a Monk is not a Druid and vice versa.

That doesn't rule out any particular *concept*. Because we aren't tied down to the D&D classes. So we can totally have "Dawnwarden" be a class, for members of a holy order who run around stabbing fools with gilded swords, firing lazer beams and Summoning demons. Or whatever. The Spells and sword character lives on. But he should probably run around in gilded armor covered in arcane symbols. And even if he's under cover, the minute some guy whips out a sword and starts lasering, you should know that's a Dawnwarden. And if he starts animating vines or tunring into a snake, you can and should call bullshit, because Dawnwardens don't do that , Fangthanes do.

[Bigode]

Yes! Yes, multiclassing as a concept is deeply stupid, and has always been stupid, and will always be stupid. The entire fucking point of having classes is to say that somebody who is a Monk is not a Druid and vice versa.

That doesn't rule out any particular *concept*. Because we aren't tied down to the D&D classes. So we can totally have "Dawnwarden" be a class, for members of a holy order who run around stabbing fools with gilded swords, firing lazer beams and Summoning demons. Or whatever. The Spells and sword character lives on. But he should probably run around in gilded armor covered in arcane symbols. And even if he's under cover, the minute some guy whips out a sword and starts lasering, you should know that's a Dawnwarden. And if he starts animating vines or tunring into a snake, you can and should call bullshit, because Dawnwardens don't do that , Fangthanes do.

And can you say somebody can't be both?

[Orion]

Yes. We can and indeed must, for many reason, not least of which is that laser-snakes are retarded.

But even if, for some reason, you really felt that it was necessary to be able to turn into a laser-shooting snake, that would be another frigging class from another setting, because the Twelve Dominions of Acamar don't have any frigging lasersnakes.

[Bigode]

[wherever] teaches you to be a druid, and [wherever else] teaches you to be an eldritch knight. Given that I suppose they exist in the same setting (unless you want each to have just one "class"), what's to keep one from going to both?

[RandomCasualty2]

Yes! Yes, multiclassing as a concept is deeply stupid, and has always been stupid, and will always be stupid. The entire fucking point of having classes is to say that somebody who is a Monk is not a Druid and vice versa.

If you think that, then really, I don't know what to say.

I don't really want a game where wizards can't fight with swords and you can't have a fighter schtick and a rogue schtick at the same time.

[virgil]

Either that, or everyone can use swords in a mundane fashion, while the fighters cut lightning in half with theirs.

[Username17]

Yes! Yes, multiclassing as a concept is deeply stupid, and has always been stupid, and will always be stupid. The entire fucking point of having classes is to say that somebody who is a Monk is not a Druid and vice versa.

If you think that, then really, I don't know what to say.

I don't really want a game where wizards can't fight with swords and you can't have a fighter schtick and a rogue schtick at the same time.

Swinging a sword is NOT A PROTECTED ROLE! It's not even interesting. "Using Magic" is far too fucking broad to count as a protectable role as well. The Kachū Tenshin Amaguriken is a protected technique. The Dragon Slave could be a protected technique.

D&D doesn't have anything in it that is special or protected. It should, but it doesn't. It should have protected roles so fucking hard that people will tell you with a straight face that it does. A lot of people will tell you that fireballs and healing magic are sacred protected cows even though literally anyone can pick up a necklace of fireballs or a potion of healing and move on with their lives.

The Book of Nine Swords could have been a step in the right direction. Diamond Soul fighting style techniques are special enough that those could be protected into the roles of specialized adventurers. Unfortunately they pussied out and opened the floodgates for every single adventurer to have those too.

People should be more than just an adventurer who has set their sword/spell slider to some number. They should actually be something. But to be something you have to put your foot down and make some clear distinctions that make you not be everything else.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

Either that, or everyone can use swords in a mundane fashion, while the fighters cut lightning in half with theirs.

That's pretty much the direction I've taken warriors.
Not as a walking toolbox of counter moves but as someone very powerful on a localized scale.
Defensively, they should be top notch.

High supernatural density of their own body and all the good stuff that goes with it.

[Username17]

High supernatural density of their own body and all the good stuff that goes with it.

The inability to swim?

---

The reason that the Shadowcaster gets attention despite the fact that it's difficult to explain what exactly it is that it does in less than half an hour and the things that it does aren't very good is because what it does is different. The fact that Shadowcasters get a pile of unique powers that other people don't get and they mostly don't get the powers that other people get means that people are willing to overlook the fact that the rules are nonsensical and overwrought. They're willing to take a power cut to actually be something.

The Shadowcaster mechanics are unsalvageable. But the fact that Shadowcasters have extremely limited overlap with the rest of the character options is exactly the direction that things should go.

D&D would be a better game if the available classes were Shadowcaster, Binder, Totemist, Warlock, and Warblade. It would be better still if those classes were made in such a manner as to have been "edited" and "playtested" of course; but having a list of classes that actually mean something other than just handing you some (possibly selectable) bonuses on top of the basic adventurer chassis would be enough of a step in the right direction that I'd be willing to live with it.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

High supernatural density of their own body and all the good stuff that goes with it.

The inability to swim?

... uh?

No. More like in the Bleach series. I read the comic so I don't know what subs or dubs use for the term, but they refer to the concentration of ones spirit density as direct cause for physical endurance, speed, force, brute strength (although size matters for this last factor, too) in addition to the mind and skills. This physical aspect is explained (retconned?) at some point in the series as having a direct relation to the amount and concentration of ones 'spiriton particles' that compose the body.
I suppose it would work if spiritons (or equivalent in D&D) had no mass, size, or gravity and yet caused physical effect themselves, but that's a slippery slope to the boondocks of pseudoscience.

Regardless, in Bleach one can sense this density as a warning of more powerful beings; they create an effect like a gravity well of the senses when 'powered up'.
Likewise Detect Magic and similar should reveal any sort of supernatural activity, not just the traditionally defined "spells and spellcasting".

If a warrior cuts lightning, be sure as fuck it'll show up on magic radar.

[K]

Let me see if I follow. If you encounter a blob creature, it's okay if it squeezes through cracks, crawls up the wall, squirts acid, and divides into two blob creatures, because those are things we expect from 'blobs.' It's not okay if the blob throws a Color Spray, though... unless it was wearing a pointy hat, or some other mark of wizarding... or the players could otherwise have reasonably deduced that the blobs were developed enough to have class levels in general.

Is that about right, or am I missing something?

I think that about covers it. So it's fine for the DM to have a new dinosaur approach when you're used to the triceratops, pachycephalosaurus and pterodactyl. This one has powerful legs, very sharp claws and a face full of sharp teeth. Cool, it can probably run fast, and might have pounce, powerful charge or even both. It possibly has rake attacks as well as a bite, and there might be an improved grab in there somewhere.

And that's fine - it's not in the book, you haven't seen it before, but by looking at it you know what it should do, and it does that. But if it starts flying (with those wings it doesn't have) and spitting fireballs all over the place, that's getting stupid - unless other dinosaurs suggested that elemental expolodey powers were normal for these things. If it calls the dead fossils up to fight for it in a powerful display of necromancy, that's bullshit.

However K's idea of "exposed brain = the Hulk is psionic" can work. It's a visual cue so you know what you're doing and what the fuck is going on.

I've been mulling over the idea of visual cues for TNE, and I think I've solved the Wizarding Blob.

Wizards use magic tattoos a la Full Metal Alchemist to use their combat powers. Intelligent Blobs with wizard levels would have magical patterns visibly suspended in their fluids.

Awesome, no?