|
|
Post by Bartholmew Quarrels on Nov 5, 2022 13:58:04 GMT -5
Everyone is always pushing the new rule sets because allegedly the older sets don't have options and all the characters are the same. OD&D > AD&D > AD&D 2E, > 3E> 3.5E > 4E > 5E> 6E. If, for instance all Fighting-Men are the same that is not the fault of OD&D, that is a stupid, imagination deficient player coupled with a bad referee who never says "Yes" or "Yes, but" or "Yes, maybe this" when player want to develop their PCs.
You want to be a scout, we can work that out, you want to be an archer, we can work that out, you want to be this or that or the other thing, we can work that out.
But we don't have to do all of that up front before the game starts, we don't have to write big back stories, we can develop all of this through play.
So what are the archetype flavors that you can have for Fighting-Men, Magic-Users and Clerics. Let's make a list and talk about how that can work in practice.
Fighting-Men
1. Scouts
2. Archers
3. Rangers
4.
X.
Magic-Users
1. Wizards
2. Sorcerers
3.
4.
X.
Clerics
1. Holy Warriors
2. Paladins
3.
4.
X.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Nov 6, 2022 16:04:45 GMT -5
Everyone is always pushing the new rule sets because allegedly the older sets don't have options and all the characters are the same. OD&D > AD&D > AD&D 2E, > 3E> 3.5E > 4E > 5E> 6E. If, for instance all Fighting-Men are the same that is not the fault of OD&D, that is a stupid, imagination deficient player coupled with a bad referee who never says "Yes" or "Yes, but" or "Yes, maybe this" when player want to develop their PCs. You want to be a scout, we can work that out, you want to be an archer, we can work that out, you want to be this or that or the other thing, we can work that out. But we don't have to do all of that up front before the game starts, we don't have to write big back stories, we can develop all of this through play. So what are the archetype flavors that you can have for Fighting-Men, Magic-Users and Clerics. Let's make a list and talk about how that can work in practice. Fighting-Men 1. Scouts 2. Archers 3. Rangers 4. X. Magic-Users 1. Wizards 2. Sorcerers 3. 4. X. Clerics 1. Holy Warriors 2. Paladins 3. 4. X. Great topic! A few additions might include the following: Fighting-Men 4. Knight 5. Witch Hunter 6. Barbarian Magic-Users 3. Witch 4. Alchemist Clerics 3. Druid 4. Monk (religious order, robed, staff, and unarmed combat, NOT the crazy anime Kung Fu monks) |
|
|
|
Post by JMiskimen on Nov 16, 2022 6:34:55 GMT -5
Clerics
Priest - CHA based, more MU-like rather than cleric.
Exorcist - specializes in demonic evil.
Flagellent - berserker/cleric.
Fighting-Men
Dungeoneer - gains ranger-like bonuses underground, similar Dwarf abilities.
Spear-Mage - specializes in limited magic and pole arms.
Magic-Users
Inscriptionist - scroll casting only, read magic & create scrolls. Lore and/or Identify abilities.
Cultists - ritual magic only; both Arcane and divine magics. Group casting bonuses.
Channeler - utilizes mana/spell points to cast magic.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Nov 26, 2022 11:25:05 GMT -5
Any D&D is a class based system, so that's what drives it. I can't live w/o Paladins(sub class of fighter). Rangers(again Fighter based) Thief(it's own class) and Barbarian(based on the White Dwarf #6(?). I give the big 3 small bonuses to give you wiggle roon:
Fighter +2 hit/+1 damage with either missile or melee
Cleric 1 spell at first
Mages 2 spells at 1st plus 4 cantrips,sleep is banned
as for the classes I listed , a single sentence for a class(except for Barbarians)
|
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Dec 11, 2022 17:57:04 GMT -5
Sounds/looks to me as a simple "mindset" conflict. If I roll up a Fighter what stops me from calling him/her a Witch Hunter or Paladin of a Man-at-Arms? Why do I have to differentiate through additional abilities or powers? Words have power so...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Dec 12, 2022 2:45:06 GMT -5
Sounds/looks to me as a simple "mindset" conflict. If I roll up a Fighter what stops me from calling him/her a Witch Hunter or Paladin of a Man-at-Arms? Why do I have to differentiate through additional abilities or powers? Words have power so... Yeah, develop the character through play, all our characters were very different bitd. That what the OP is saying, I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by bastet1002 on Dec 13, 2022 22:22:07 GMT -5
Great topic! A few additions might include the following: Fighting-Men 4. Knight 5. Witch Hunter 6. Barbarian Magic-Users 3. Witch 4. Alchemist Clerics 3. Druid 4. Monk (religious order, robed, staff, and unarmed combat, NOT the crazy anime Kung Fu monks) I was going to say Druid too. It is a very easy to add this. A simple way is to just make one like a Cleric with a worship focus on nature. Instead of turn undead, use the same chart for befriending animals (includes giant sized animals by hit dice, but not monsters). This ability would not make the animals a friend, but simply calm them for a certain number of turns so that they are not aggressive and are not interested in the Druid and his or her group. I would do away with skills you see in later editions such as shape changing. I don't really like that. Instead of raise dead, have a reincarnation spell instead. They maybe should also have a forestry skill (tracking, identifying plants, foraging for particular herbs). Cut out healing spells, but allow them to perform healing using foraged herbs that are applied to wounds as first aid, or ground into a poultice and ingested. |
|
