Barbarian: its a type of society not a trained occupation.
Thief: anyone who steals stuff is part thief
Druid: either wizard or cleric based... its just a magic user
Warlord: its a position in the ranks of an army. basically something you gain at name level.
Bard: PICK A FUCKING CLASS YOU FLAKE! or just go home and play your skin flute.
for that matter does there NEED to be things like mixed class classes?
Ranger: just pick fighter now and multiclass with the caster later
Paladin: pick fighter now and multiclass cleric later
if multiclasing was simpler then you would need to have these halfbreed classes to begin with.
fighter can choose options to allow for the amount of ranged or melee he wants to employ. so you dont need a ranger
this will also help prevent homogeneity of characters similar to the kits/PrCs did i guess, but people will focus on what they want, rather than replicate a netdeck, erm CharOp'd character.
what are the other bastard classes that really dont need to exist?
are these even worthy to be D&D classes?
Moderator: Moderators
are these even worthy to be D&D classes?
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
-
Hieronymous Rex
- Journeyman
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:23 am
On Barbarians:
The barbarian is entrenched entirely because of Rage; people like the ability in contrast to a more disciplined Fighter. Actually, the function of the class would be more clear if were called Berserker rather than implying that barbaric (i.e. primitive outlanders) peoples all take it.
On Thieves:
All characters can swing a sword, but it doesn't invalidate Fighters. Also, lock picking and reading scrolls & languages/Use Magic Device cannot be used by all characters. The Thief/Rogue is an acceptable class in a game where classes are as fine grained as Ranger. On the other hand, they are still, in the context of D&D, another fighter variant, but if magic-users can specialize in schools, it stands to reason that fighters should be able to be berserkers, rangers, rogues, etc..
On Druids:
Specialist cleric. The fact that it's a separate class isn't bad by itself, but it's strange that it's the only kind of specialist cleric that gets a base class. If Druid is a class, Saint, Infernalist, Sun Worshiper (or whatever mix you desire) should be as well.
On Warlords:
While it's name was chosen because it sounded cool, the class makes sense: in real world militaries, there is a distinction between enlisted men and officers (i.e. Warlords), which is not just a rank, but a differing skill set.
On Bards:
The class has quite a bit of historical and fictional source material, but what exactly it should do is unclear to me.
On multiclassing:
A ranger isn't a fighter that casts spells, it's a fighter with outdoors-man skills. Admittedly, a paladin could be represented by a Fighter/Cleric, but I think of the class as an EZ Mode cleric; instead of preparing spells it get's abilities specifically chosen to support a fighter-like play style. Your comment on ranged and melee is confusing; are you implying that Fighters are by default melee combatants? Because that's both wrong, and a bad idea to limit them that way.
The barbarian is entrenched entirely because of Rage; people like the ability in contrast to a more disciplined Fighter. Actually, the function of the class would be more clear if were called Berserker rather than implying that barbaric (i.e. primitive outlanders) peoples all take it.
On Thieves:
All characters can swing a sword, but it doesn't invalidate Fighters. Also, lock picking and reading scrolls & languages/Use Magic Device cannot be used by all characters. The Thief/Rogue is an acceptable class in a game where classes are as fine grained as Ranger. On the other hand, they are still, in the context of D&D, another fighter variant, but if magic-users can specialize in schools, it stands to reason that fighters should be able to be berserkers, rangers, rogues, etc..
On Druids:
Specialist cleric. The fact that it's a separate class isn't bad by itself, but it's strange that it's the only kind of specialist cleric that gets a base class. If Druid is a class, Saint, Infernalist, Sun Worshiper (or whatever mix you desire) should be as well.
On Warlords:
While it's name was chosen because it sounded cool, the class makes sense: in real world militaries, there is a distinction between enlisted men and officers (i.e. Warlords), which is not just a rank, but a differing skill set.
On Bards:
The class has quite a bit of historical and fictional source material, but what exactly it should do is unclear to me.
On multiclassing:
A ranger isn't a fighter that casts spells, it's a fighter with outdoors-man skills. Admittedly, a paladin could be represented by a Fighter/Cleric, but I think of the class as an EZ Mode cleric; instead of preparing spells it get's abilities specifically chosen to support a fighter-like play style. Your comment on ranged and melee is confusing; are you implying that Fighters are by default melee combatants? Because that's both wrong, and a bad idea to limit them that way.
Last edited by Hieronymous Rex on Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Barbarian, warlord, etc were all "kits".. just a few ideas to throw into the fighter to make a sub-class when they came about. same for myrmidon, berserker, etc.
ranger/fighter...
remember we have HEAVY influence from LotR and the rangers were more like Legolas, while fighters were more like Gimli. that is why those races often are presented as having those as preferred classes.
Legolas COULD use melee, but Gimli wouldnt be firing bows, and there are so few axes you can carry to throw. the outdoorsman skills are NWP/skills/feats that i dont care for. that is all in the way you want to play.
sure fighters and jsut about anyone else can swing a sword, but everyone needs to use weapons, just a fighter prefers to. like ranger the thief is just skills. there should be LESS skills not more. so fighter is just normal person in the world, thus wizard/cleric are people who cast spells more than swing a sword. THAT is why the thief isnt anything special.
you nailed the Druid, but i guess they didnt have historical or mythic names to fit the others, and when the specialty priests came about they probably didnt remove it because it was well established in u se? also they didnt care to write a new name for each type of specialty priest as the DM could do that. Wizard specialists just went with the school of magic for their names, Abjurer, Illusionist, Conjurer, etc. what to call a specialty priest then? and Airist? let them be named after the games deities rather than spheres.
i just mean that multiclasing should be simple enough that you dont need ranger, you just mix those functions as you want to. not that there isnt interesting things in the ranger that couldnt be somehow given access to ALL classes.
Bards just "sang" the exploits of others. usually cowering and hiding when action was going on and being drug along while others werent able to write to tell their own story. also telling YOUR OWN story wasnt really a good way to get people to believe you, so someone "impartial" was helpful to relay or even embellish the story. also bards were spare squires to do the grunt work like clean this, cook that, dress me in my armor, help me onto my horse...nothing like what they try to do in D&D. at best D&D bards are cheerleaders. boost the ego of your team and deflate the enemy teams.
ranger/fighter...
remember we have HEAVY influence from LotR and the rangers were more like Legolas, while fighters were more like Gimli. that is why those races often are presented as having those as preferred classes.
Legolas COULD use melee, but Gimli wouldnt be firing bows, and there are so few axes you can carry to throw. the outdoorsman skills are NWP/skills/feats that i dont care for. that is all in the way you want to play.
sure fighters and jsut about anyone else can swing a sword, but everyone needs to use weapons, just a fighter prefers to. like ranger the thief is just skills. there should be LESS skills not more. so fighter is just normal person in the world, thus wizard/cleric are people who cast spells more than swing a sword. THAT is why the thief isnt anything special.
you nailed the Druid, but i guess they didnt have historical or mythic names to fit the others, and when the specialty priests came about they probably didnt remove it because it was well established in u se? also they didnt care to write a new name for each type of specialty priest as the DM could do that. Wizard specialists just went with the school of magic for their names, Abjurer, Illusionist, Conjurer, etc. what to call a specialty priest then? and Airist? let them be named after the games deities rather than spheres.
i just mean that multiclasing should be simple enough that you dont need ranger, you just mix those functions as you want to. not that there isnt interesting things in the ranger that couldnt be somehow given access to ALL classes.
Bards just "sang" the exploits of others. usually cowering and hiding when action was going on and being drug along while others werent able to write to tell their own story. also telling YOUR OWN story wasnt really a good way to get people to believe you, so someone "impartial" was helpful to relay or even embellish the story. also bards were spare squires to do the grunt work like clean this, cook that, dress me in my armor, help me onto my horse...nothing like what they try to do in D&D. at best D&D bards are cheerleaders. boost the ego of your team and deflate the enemy teams.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
How many classes a game with classes should have depends on several factors.
First is how broad a list of abilties every class gets to pick from. If you were using 3.X's "Generic Classes" variant then yes having only 4 classes is fine. However, from those four classes you can nominally build ANY one of the more traditional 3.x classes or some combinations of powers and abiltiies that is pretty reasonably close or possibly superior.
So if you plant players to basically have to build their own class then having almost no class structure is a bonus.
However, the reason you are playing a game with classes is because they provide assistance with role, functionality, background, motivation, and a whle host of other stuff.
If you really want to take advantage of a level system you have a whole crapload of classes. A class for everything. You make no class longer than 10 levels. Then you assume that every level of every class should be treated as its own special lego building block.
So you then need to have barbarians, paladins, chavaliers, knights, samurai, ninja, assassins, loremasters, warlords, battlemages, wu-jen, witches, legionares, rangers, bards, scalds, pirates, scholar-priets, archeologists, and really anything else you can think of as a class.
Basically you try and make the FF tactics job system with your class/level system.
First is how broad a list of abilties every class gets to pick from. If you were using 3.X's "Generic Classes" variant then yes having only 4 classes is fine. However, from those four classes you can nominally build ANY one of the more traditional 3.x classes or some combinations of powers and abiltiies that is pretty reasonably close or possibly superior.
So if you plant players to basically have to build their own class then having almost no class structure is a bonus.
However, the reason you are playing a game with classes is because they provide assistance with role, functionality, background, motivation, and a whle host of other stuff.
If you really want to take advantage of a level system you have a whole crapload of classes. A class for everything. You make no class longer than 10 levels. Then you assume that every level of every class should be treated as its own special lego building block.
So you then need to have barbarians, paladins, chavaliers, knights, samurai, ninja, assassins, loremasters, warlords, battlemages, wu-jen, witches, legionares, rangers, bards, scalds, pirates, scholar-priets, archeologists, and really anything else you can think of as a class.
Basically you try and make the FF tactics job system with your class/level system.
then just dont have a class and use 2.5's build your own class? that gets too screwy. but i fear what 5e will try to work toward.
a class should have a unique ability that NOBODY else should be able to perform. ALL magic is and should be covered with wizard and cleric. you want to try to create a 3rd type of magic? Psionics has NEVER worked.
what really is so special about a paladin that a cleric/fighter cant do? what background is needed? this is what the PLAYER should be providing, why his fighter has cleric abilities.
if you want to make a clas for everrything then you are going into HEAVY simulationism and would have a class list something like this:
Pikeman
Long swordsman
short swordsman
archer/bowman
bastard swordsman
clubman
flailman
see how silly it gets?
there needs to be a uniqueness that others cant do, and again barbarians, assassins, and some of these other "keyword" names offer nothing really other than a catchy name or title, and are NOT classes.
OD&D really had the ONLY classes needed:
non-magic user (fighting man)
arcane magic user (magic-user)
divine magic user (cleric)
what else is there when you can mix and match classes?
assassin, druid, monk, paladin, and thief were all added to AD&D...for what reasons i really dont know. (possibly to make it different from the Gygax & Arneson version)
a class should have a unique ability that NOBODY else should be able to perform. ALL magic is and should be covered with wizard and cleric. you want to try to create a 3rd type of magic? Psionics has NEVER worked.
what really is so special about a paladin that a cleric/fighter cant do? what background is needed? this is what the PLAYER should be providing, why his fighter has cleric abilities.
if you want to make a clas for everrything then you are going into HEAVY simulationism and would have a class list something like this:
Pikeman
Long swordsman
short swordsman
archer/bowman
bastard swordsman
clubman
flailman
see how silly it gets?
there needs to be a uniqueness that others cant do, and again barbarians, assassins, and some of these other "keyword" names offer nothing really other than a catchy name or title, and are NOT classes.
OD&D really had the ONLY classes needed:
non-magic user (fighting man)
arcane magic user (magic-user)
divine magic user (cleric)
what else is there when you can mix and match classes?
assassin, druid, monk, paladin, and thief were all added to AD&D...for what reasons i really dont know. (possibly to make it different from the Gygax & Arneson version)
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
This feels really dumb to be talking to shadzar in two of his crazy threads.....
If you can get to that level of detail where they have powers in one that are compelling enough to be worht playing.
Also, as usual you are completely wrong on older versions of D&D as well.
OD&D had elves and dwarves as racial classes and these racial classes were basically hybrids like paladins or the ranger is now.
and 1E D&D had rangers, paladins, and druids AND special rules for Bards AND it had unearthed arcana which added barbrarians, chavaliers and lots of others. It also had wierd products that introduced goofy things like a roman legionaire class burried in various books.
So its not like the fact that you could build classes around lots of often quite specific concepts is new to D&D. Its been around the block. Its part of the game.
The thing is none of that stuff is silly. Those are all perfectly fine classes as long as you can come up with a power scheme to support them.shadzar wrote: if you want to make a clas for everrything then you are going into HEAVY simulationism and would have a class list something like this:
Pikeman
Long swordsman
short swordsman
archer/bowman
bastard swordsman
clubman
flailman
see how silly it gets?
If you can get to that level of detail where they have powers in one that are compelling enough to be worht playing.
Also, as usual you are completely wrong on older versions of D&D as well.
OD&D had elves and dwarves as racial classes and these racial classes were basically hybrids like paladins or the ranger is now.
and 1E D&D had rangers, paladins, and druids AND special rules for Bards AND it had unearthed arcana which added barbrarians, chavaliers and lots of others. It also had wierd products that introduced goofy things like a roman legionaire class burried in various books.
So its not like the fact that you could build classes around lots of often quite specific concepts is new to D&D. Its been around the block. Its part of the game.
no they are not valid.. a class per weapon is jsut stupid and more bloat than any of the brown splat books or 3 million acres of wasted rainforest to print the crap PrCs and such in 3rd.souran wrote:The thing is none of that stuff is silly. Those are all perfectly fine classes as long as you can come up with a power scheme to support them.shadzar wrote: if you want to make a clas for everything then you are going into HEAVY simulationism and would have a class list something like this:
Pikeman
Long swordsman
short swordsman
archer/bowman
bastard swordsman
clubman
flailman
see how silly it gets?
If you can get to that level of detail where they have powers in one that are compelling enough to be worht playing.
also this "power source" crap needs to die, as it cannot be a part of any respectable D&D game...it didnt work for 4th and that means it in in only 5% of the D&D editions?
the power source of a weapon user comes from... his STR.
you forgot hobbits, but i wasnt trying to list silly shit that got moved away from as AD&D didnt have a race that IS a class. it has been said such will never return, and if i want that i will play BD&DAlso, as usual you are completely wrong on older versions of D&D as well.
OD&D had elves and dwarves as racial classes and these racial classes were basically hybrids like paladins or the ranger is now.
you mean 1e AD&D there i think, because Unearthed Arcana came out and was called 1.5e AD&Dand 1E D&D had rangers, paladins, and druids AND special rules for Bards AND it had unearthed arcana which added barbrarians, chavaliers and lots of others. It also had wierd products that introduced goofy things like a roman legionaire class burried in various books.
So its not like the fact that you could build classes around lots of often quite specific concepts is new to D&D. Its been around the block. Its part of the game.
OD&D = chainmail supplement with greyhawk and blackmoor as expansions
BD&D = BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia (5th Edition D&D)
B/X = the non-Mentzer D&D
AD&D 1e
AD&D 2e
WotC 3rd D&D (based on AD&D 2nd PO's called 2.5)
WotC 4th D&D
"classes" as you are calling them arent really even classes, but like the PrCs were kits. and they ARE a problem. you dont need that stuff.
a non-magic user has ONE shtick. hitting things.
a magic user has ONE shtick. casting spells.
anything else can be done by anyone. now you could go total build options like some people seem to want, but you would be playing GURPS where you build classes on the fly by buying abilities. again 2.5 tried this subclass method and it failed. it was divided up into feats and the point buy system for abilities was more hard wired into classes.
again MANY people dont care for feats/NWPs and such.
a ranger having tracking makes you question "why cant anyone else do it", then verisimilitude is lost. so to allow everyone else to do it, either its as simple as an ability check or you create NWPs.. and you are in an infinite loop you cannot escape.. you must create feats and skills for everything.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
I'm not sure why you'd even want a cleric / wizard divide.
Imo everyone should just be bards.
If they want to fight a bit better pick up strenght, cast better pick up one of those stats etc.
Imo everyone should just be bards.
If they want to fight a bit better pick up strenght, cast better pick up one of those stats etc.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
to prevent MANY arguments.. but caster and non-caster could easily work for many.ishy wrote:I'm not sure why you'd even want a cleric / wizard divide.
also MOST fiction has some sort of internal AND external magic... so which are you using.
internal magic can drain your life force, while external requires a catalyst. other such things.
just makes more people happy to have arcane and divine separate.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
-
PoliteNewb
- Duke
- Posts: 1053
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
- Location: Alaska
- Contact:
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I actually agree with Shadzar (in the OP). If you have a robust multiclassing system, you really don't need that many classes...you could probably get by with the simplified "basic 3" from the SRD.
Tradition. That is literally all. Back in the day when clerics were basically just vampire hunters like Peter Cushing, there wasn't even such a thing as "arcane vs. divine magic".ishy wrote:I'm not sure why you'd even want a cleric / wizard divide.
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
-
Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
Hieronymous Rex wrote: On Thieves:
All characters can swing a sword, but it doesn't invalidate Fighters. Also, lock picking and reading scrolls & languages/Use Magic Device cannot be used by all characters. The Thief/Rogue is an acceptable class in a game where classes are as fine grained as Ranger. On the other hand, they are still, in the context of D&D, another fighter variant, but if magic-users can specialize in schools, it stands to reason that fighters should be able to be berserkers, rangers, rogues, etc..
Like PoliteNewb, I have a lot of sympathy with where Shadzar is coming from, at least for the martial classes. Conceptually, magic is pretty much whatever the hell you want it to be and in D&D having a specialist school or a couple domains isn't even particularly limiting or considered the purview of a separate class. So while I guess it makes a bit of thematic sense to say that if Wizards get to specialize then everyone gets to specialize, it really falls flat on its face when you try to balance things out given that magic is conceptually broad and individual martial shticks are conceptually narrow and that having separate classes implies a degree of role protection. That's a problem when the Transmuter is "specializing" at manipulating matter, whereas the Barbarian specializes at getting super pissed off. Fundamentally, what the Barbarian does is just not all that much different from what the Fighter is doing, which is part of why it doesn't take that many levels before I'd rather be a Cleric than a fighter/barbarian/ranger gestalt.
Last edited by Whipstitch on Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Ancient History
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 12708
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm
Barbarian (or perhaps more accurately, berserker) has some historical precedence, but it's one of those classes (like the monk) where they tried to justify it with an original mechanic (rage) and then went overboard in trying to make that mechanic/class stand out (to the point where you might as well call it "rage points" instead of per/day). Basically, the barbarian as a class didn't have enough going for it to justify itself, although some of the prestige classes (where you can transform into a bear and shit) help a little.
-
Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
There's only one class; adventurer. People who wear outfits, wield tools, and use magic.
Everything else is just details.
I'm still playing around with my ideas on "combat roles" to add granularity. An Assault unit is an Assault unit; a Missile Unit is a Missile Unit; a Defence unit is a Defence unit.
Most Combat units will have a speciality; and a minimum amount in the other three roles.
More in-depth units can pick up stuff such as:
Advance
-Flag
-Watch
-Scout
Rest
-Mess-Cook
-Chirurgeory
-Chaplain
Supply
-Teamster
-Porter
-Quartermaster
The idea being that since the most balanced and fair content in any edition of D&D has been more based on Dominions 3: The Awakening, than D&D itself; then a wargame approach to building units is going to be much more balanced and fair than any stupid sacred-cow hugging D&D-based approach.
There are no Pikers or Macemen; defense or assault units. There are no fire mages or archers as separate and completely different units; they're both Missile units.
That sort of thing.
It's... a lot clunkier than I'd like; and the system I want to give the wargame treatment to is an anti-tactical system (AWoD/After Sundown); however, if one of the most complicated and remotely balanced wargames is intersected with AWoD to create a single system that supports both storytelling and tacti-strategic scenarios.... I have a feeling that it might be pretty good as a product.... I'll also have to look at Warp Cult again, it had structures on how to develop organizations that are above and beyond most things written for other content.
Everything else is just details.
I'm still playing around with my ideas on "combat roles" to add granularity. An Assault unit is an Assault unit; a Missile Unit is a Missile Unit; a Defence unit is a Defence unit.
Most Combat units will have a speciality; and a minimum amount in the other three roles.
More in-depth units can pick up stuff such as:
Advance
-Flag
-Watch
-Scout
Rest
-Mess-Cook
-Chirurgeory
-Chaplain
Supply
-Teamster
-Porter
-Quartermaster
The idea being that since the most balanced and fair content in any edition of D&D has been more based on Dominions 3: The Awakening, than D&D itself; then a wargame approach to building units is going to be much more balanced and fair than any stupid sacred-cow hugging D&D-based approach.
There are no Pikers or Macemen; defense or assault units. There are no fire mages or archers as separate and completely different units; they're both Missile units.
That sort of thing.
It's... a lot clunkier than I'd like; and the system I want to give the wargame treatment to is an anti-tactical system (AWoD/After Sundown); however, if one of the most complicated and remotely balanced wargames is intersected with AWoD to create a single system that supports both storytelling and tacti-strategic scenarios.... I have a feeling that it might be pretty good as a product.... I'll also have to look at Warp Cult again, it had structures on how to develop organizations that are above and beyond most things written for other content.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Yes. But in a class based system, those details are whatever the fuck your game role protects and shorthand notation to tell the other players what your character can do.Judging__Eagle wrote:There's only one class; adventurer. People who wear outfits, wield tools, and use magic.
Everything else is just details.
Those things can of course be anything, and can be game mechanical or narrative. Preferably, each class should have some of both so that people don't feel that they have to talk "out of character" when discussing something as fundamental as the classes people are bringing to the team.
That being said, you're damn right that "spearman" could be a viable class. All it needs is something it can do in the game - probably having something to do with area control, and something it can do in the world - probably having something to do with inspiring others by dint of rising from the ranks of random militia to be a monster hunting personal badass.
The problem I see with so many classes is that they simply don't have a reason to exist. They don't really do anything that another class doesn't do. Sometimes that's on the game mechanical end, sometimes it's on the story end, but all too frequently it's on both ends - like the fucking Fighter.
-Username17
-
JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5525
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
-
Hieronymous Rex
- Journeyman
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:23 am
Very little is actually required to make rangers, rogues, and other fighter specializations, and it's the same way magic-user specializations work: give up one ability for another (and so could equally be called an ACF).Whipstitch wrote:So while I guess it makes a bit of thematic sense to say that if Wizards get to specialize then everyone gets to specialize, it really falls flat on its face when you try to balance things out given that magic is conceptually broad and individual martial shticks are conceptually narrow and that having separate classes implies a degree of role protection.
For instance, say that the base fighter has the abilities Zone of Control and Feats of Athletics. A Warlord is the same as a base fighter, except loses Zone of Control in exchange for Command Aura.
If you wanted to, you could even allows multiple specializations like this, so that a fighter can take both Warlord and Ranger to gain Command Aura and Ranger Skills in exchange for Zone of Control and Feats of Athletics.
-
ModelCitizen
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am
On bards: A 2e/3e bard is trying to be a fighter/cleric/mage/thief and it doesn't work very well. The thing is, we already have a working fighter/cleric/mage, it's called cleric and they kick ass. We can take care of the bard's "gish with some support spells and some illusiony spells" shtick just by building on the cleric chassis with a different spell list.
That just leaves Thief. Fortunately the part of the thief that bards care about is the skill list, and having a lot of skills makes you iconically a "thief" but doesn't do very much. Baseline skills by themselves suck and have always sucked, and while the 3e rogue should have the WeeabooShadowNinjaStep ability that would let him sneak up on, say, a chihuahua or a kobold in its home, the bard doesn't need it. He doesn't have to worry about how he's supposed to use stealth beyond the starting town because he has Silence and Invisibility and Darkvision. The bard doesn't need the skill advancement the thief does and the main thing people care about is that the bard gets a lot of skills at 1st level. Giving them that is easy and harmless.
TLDR: make a bards Cha- or Int-based clerics that trades Flamestrikes and alignment-based spells for illusions and enchantment, and give them a bunch of little 1st level skills that don't really matter beyond MTP anyway. Bard is now a real class, problem solved.
On rangers: I have no idea what a ranger is even supposed to be. Various fantasy settings have put them everywhere from Rooster Cogburn to elven archer-mages. My preference would be to let the Aragorns and Rooster Cogburns be a fighter kit or something, because good ranged combat and perception and stealth and animal companions (mounts) are things fighters should be allowed to have. That leaves the ranger as a full-on gish class, but then I can't decide whether its spellcasting half should be full druid flavor or split between druid and mage.
That just leaves Thief. Fortunately the part of the thief that bards care about is the skill list, and having a lot of skills makes you iconically a "thief" but doesn't do very much. Baseline skills by themselves suck and have always sucked, and while the 3e rogue should have the WeeabooShadowNinjaStep ability that would let him sneak up on, say, a chihuahua or a kobold in its home, the bard doesn't need it. He doesn't have to worry about how he's supposed to use stealth beyond the starting town because he has Silence and Invisibility and Darkvision. The bard doesn't need the skill advancement the thief does and the main thing people care about is that the bard gets a lot of skills at 1st level. Giving them that is easy and harmless.
TLDR: make a bards Cha- or Int-based clerics that trades Flamestrikes and alignment-based spells for illusions and enchantment, and give them a bunch of little 1st level skills that don't really matter beyond MTP anyway. Bard is now a real class, problem solved.
On rangers: I have no idea what a ranger is even supposed to be. Various fantasy settings have put them everywhere from Rooster Cogburn to elven archer-mages. My preference would be to let the Aragorns and Rooster Cogburns be a fighter kit or something, because good ranged combat and perception and stealth and animal companions (mounts) are things fighters should be allowed to have. That leaves the ranger as a full-on gish class, but then I can't decide whether its spellcasting half should be full druid flavor or split between druid and mage.
Last edited by ModelCitizen on Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Is it safe to say the D&D barbarian was mainly influenced by Conan? Having read the Conan stories by Howard, I think the rage mechanic doesn't properly represent what Conan does... Action Points do. Heck, all of those 4e human feats revolving around bonuses when spending action points (shaking off fear and stuff) are just to turn you more and more Conan-like.
I would rather have a more flexible base class+ a solid multiclassing system to make a forest warrior or northern berserker from Fighter, instead of it being their own classes.
Conan ought to be what the system can create smoothly, not an awkward mashup of multiple classes. That would be my design goal.
from what I can recall of my heartbreaker notes it'd be something like...
Warrior
-weapon styles
-super athleticism points (barb rage, monk chi)
Mystic (no arcane/divine divide, but people can still call themselves priests or wizards, it's all mystic stuff)
- schools of magic
Skillmonkey
-technical talents like thievery, crafting perhaps
- does sneak attack really need to be something separate from warriors?
A Fighter is Warrior ***, Wizard is Mystic ***, Cleric is Mystic**/Warrior*, Ranger is Warrior**/Skillmonkey*, Stabby Rogue is Skillmonkey**/Warrior*
I would rather have a more flexible base class+ a solid multiclassing system to make a forest warrior or northern berserker from Fighter, instead of it being their own classes.
Conan ought to be what the system can create smoothly, not an awkward mashup of multiple classes. That would be my design goal.
from what I can recall of my heartbreaker notes it'd be something like...
Warrior
-weapon styles
-super athleticism points (barb rage, monk chi)
Mystic (no arcane/divine divide, but people can still call themselves priests or wizards, it's all mystic stuff)
- schools of magic
Skillmonkey
-technical talents like thievery, crafting perhaps
- does sneak attack really need to be something separate from warriors?
A Fighter is Warrior ***, Wizard is Mystic ***, Cleric is Mystic**/Warrior*, Ranger is Warrior**/Skillmonkey*, Stabby Rogue is Skillmonkey**/Warrior*
Last edited by OgreBattle on Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
considering they made a conan game when more people clamored for barbarians and the movies were just out.. then yes.OgreBattle wrote:Is it safe to say the D&D barbarian was mainly influenced by Conan?
the barbaric lifestyle wasnt anything really different than a Sumerian fighter there.. its just people saw them as less civilized and more savage.
again, proving it has nothing to do with a class, like ranger being presented as a woodsy outdoors non-city-dwelling fighter.
high elf and grey elf were two races depending on were and how they lived, city or forest. so why have a class broken down by city or nature dwellings?
society and location really doesnt impart class features or race for that matter. a monk is just an eastern fighter.
hopefully everyone else's as well.. ALL things like ninja, monk, etc that are STYLES of fighting should be under the Fighter class as a way to make your character your own.Conan ought to be what the system can create smoothly, not an awkward mashup of multiple classes. That would be my design goal.
the problem will then fall on min-maxxers that try to direct that X wont work because it is underpowered if someone wants some monk style with board-and-sword.
you will have to let the "multiclassing" happen and work with it for EACH group or it will NEVER work.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
-
Hieronymous Rex
- Journeyman
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:23 am
I agree that an associated action point system, of different justifications, is a good basis for a Fighter class, as well as that the Thief class should be the emphasized as also the Expert. I think that Sneak Attack, or at least Stealth (which depending on the length of fights, may be a strong combat ability) helps the Skillmonkey be able to give a distinct contribution to combat.OgreBattle wrote:Is it safe to say the D&D barbarian was mainly influenced by Conan? Having read the Conan stories by Howard, I think the rage mechanic doesn't properly represent what Conan does... Action Points do. Heck, all of those 4e human feats revolving around bonuses when spending action points (shaking off fear and stuff) are just to turn you more and more Conan-like.
...
Warrior
-weapon styles
-super athleticism points (barb rage, monk chi)
Mystic (no arcane/divine divide, but people can still call themselves priests or wizards, it's all mystic stuff)
- schools of magic
Skillmonkey
-technical talents like thievery, crafting perhaps
- does sneak attack really need to be something separate from warriors?
...
Correct me if I'm making a wild speculation, but the Rogue/Skillmonkey seems like the first class primitive humans took: Hunting (e.g. stalking and trapsetting) and Gathering (which led to crafting, including locksmithing eventually; agriculture and simple engineering, and also theft within and between communities). The military class would come somewhat later as communities became larger and could benefit from a dedicated policing and defense force. The rise of factory production reduced the need for mastercraftsman, i.e. higher level Experts.
Last edited by Hieronymous Rex on Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yes, the Cleric made the Bard worthless... but that was more due to the 3E style Cleric being an intentionally overpowered abomination that should not have been, than the fault of the bard. If you take the full-casting (which includes utility and Spells that Actually Kill People) heavy armored medium BAB classes out of the game, suddenly the bard (and all those fighter/wizard wannabe Prc's) actually seems like a pretty solid class choice. And hell, if you give it some simple quality of life boosts like a caster level equal it's class level and not needing to waste real actions to keep it's buff aura up, (which is already RAW, but holy fuck have I seen this getting house ruled out so damn often because it's "not realistic") it's actually a damn good class for a system that generally hates jacks of all trades.ModelCitizen wrote:On bards: A 2e/3e bard is trying to be a fighter/cleric/mage/thief and it doesn't work very well. The thing is, we already have a working fighter/cleric/mage, it's called cleric and they kick ass. We can take care of the bard's "gish with some support spells and some illusiony spells" shtick just by building on the cleric chassis with a different spell list.
-
Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
I never really understood how clerics were allowed to be so good. My initial reaction to the spell list and all the perks you got through domains in 3rd could best be summed up as "Bwah, what?!". How weird is it that a full caster class can make a pretty defensible dip thanks to the domain bonuses, better access to wands and a bump to the better saves?
bears fall, everyone dies
The simple answer is, to make people want to play the healer classes. No really, the 3E designers' thought process was this:
Dev A: People hate playing clerics, because Healers are seen as a shitty, passive unfun role. What can we do about this?
Dev B: I have a cunning plan! Step 1 is we make the Cleric and Druid so insanely powerful that even the munchkins and power gamers will be lured into playing one. Step 3 is that the person playing the Cleric/Druid having now learned the joy of being a team player and sharing, uses his abilities only to buff and heal others, allowing everybody to play more effectively instead of hogging all the spotlight for himself.
Dev A: What's Step 2?
Dev B: I dunno, but Step 1 has people playing healers more and Step 3 creates the illusion of class balance, so that's good enough for this edition. Let's go get lunch!
Dev A: Ooo! I want tacos!
Dev A: People hate playing clerics, because Healers are seen as a shitty, passive unfun role. What can we do about this?
Dev B: I have a cunning plan! Step 1 is we make the Cleric and Druid so insanely powerful that even the munchkins and power gamers will be lured into playing one. Step 3 is that the person playing the Cleric/Druid having now learned the joy of being a team player and sharing, uses his abilities only to buff and heal others, allowing everybody to play more effectively instead of hogging all the spotlight for himself.
Dev A: What's Step 2?
Dev B: I dunno, but Step 1 has people playing healers more and Step 3 creates the illusion of class balance, so that's good enough for this edition. Let's go get lunch!
Dev A: Ooo! I want tacos!
Last edited by sake on Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
That being said, there is no need to be reductionist. The potential roles and flavors are inexhaustible.FrankTrollman wrote:Yes. But in a class based system, those details are whatever the fuck your game role protects and shorthand notation to tell the other players what your character can do.Judging__Eagle wrote:There's only one class; adventurer. People who wear outfits, wield tools, and use magic.
Everything else is just details.
Sure, after a point no one is going to remember what the Bear Warrior does that the Barbarian doesn't do, but balancing the various classes is pretty easy if you set clear benchmarks of what should be possible.
Of course, DnD hates benchmarks because they are afraid that players will feel bad if they find out that they are a bad player.
-
ModelCitizen
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am
My point is just that the bard and the cleric are really conceptually similar, but the bard gets saddled with worse progressions for being a "hybrid" and the cleric doesn't. 3e clerics are crazytown, but if you were writing a new edition and you rebuilt the cleric into something you liked, then whatever your cleric is should be the basis for the bard class.sake wrote: Yes, the Cleric made the Bard worthless... but that was more due to the 3E style Cleric being an intentionally overpowered abomination that should not have been, than the fault of the bard.