|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 9, 2015 16:01:44 GMT -5
I have grown weary of the thief already. I won't allow them in my gonzo campaigns. I may take them out of my more high-fantasy campaign as well. All dungeon-crawlers are "burglars," so to speak. I am starting to envision a way to make a cleric just a type of FM. In a way, that is almost what they are. So I am not a big fan of "class creep" these days.
I had a conversation with a new schooler (not that there is anything wrong with that) who said, "yeah, but I wouldn't want to play OS, I like playing drow elves (is that how you spell that?)." I said, okay, so you are a chaotic elf. She said, yeah, but I want to look like a drow. Okay, I said, that is what your character now looks like. But, she continued, what about the special abilities and knowledge? Okay, I said, you've got 'em. We can discuss if that affects mechanics during play.
So I started thinking about all the additional classes that grew up. I know some of you guys like them / are more comfortable with them than I. I thought I would just throw up something along the lines of the above conversation and then learn how to do it better from all of you guys (as usual). I just studied 1e and then skipped to 5e classes:
Assassin
Ref, I want to be an ASSASSIN! Okay, you are a chaotic character who puts his name out for hire for such jobs with a network of folks you know in the thieving quarter.
Barbarian
Ref, I want to be a BARBARIAN! Okay, you are one. It's called "fighting-man." Your character hails from barbarian lands. By Crom!
Bard
Ref, I want to be a BARD! Okay, if you have a fighting man with an above average charisma score you just need to purchase an enchanted and portable musical instrument. That will be (I roll 3d6) 1,500 gp. You will have to keep it maintained at 1% gp accrued from then on. With it you can charm person at lvl 4, monster at lvl 7, hold person at lvl 7, hold monster at lvl 10. You can read magic but we will use some house ruling from the CM table for whether you read a scroll successfully or not.
Druid
Ref, I want to be a DRUID! Okay, so I will allow you to be a neutral cleric. You loose the ability to turn undead. But you gain spells (like) summon elemental, summon djinn, invisible stalker, contact higher plane, etc.
Illusionist
Ref, I want to be an ILLUSIONIST! Okay. Why would you want to do that?
Monk
Ref, I want to be a MONK! Okay, you are a cleric who can fight fist-a-cuffs without a penalty to damage. But you loose the ability to bless or purify anything.
Paladin
Ref, I want to be a PALADIN! Okay, if your lawful fighting man has an above average wisdom score he can vow to heaven before a sufficiently high cleric. He can turn undead like a lvl 1 CL. At lvl 4 he can turn undead like a lvl 2 CL and cast one lvl 1 CL spell per day. At lvl 7 he can turn undead like a lvl 3 CL and cast two clerical spells per day at lvls 1 or 2. At lvl 10 he can turn undead like a lvl 4 CL and cast three clerical spells per day at lvls 1 - 3. He may not accrue wealth. If he violates this vow or performs an action that would change his alignment he looses all this and is CURSED. We'll figure out what that means if it happens.
Ranger
Ref, I want to be a RANGER! Okay, if you have a fighting man with an above average dexterity score you can track at lvl 1, talk with animals at lvl 3 and plants at lvl 7. But you cannot accrue wealth. After meeting your needs (including exploration and hiring folks) you have to give your money away to your "cause" (whatever that is). If you do accrue money, you loose the abilities. If this is a campaign with thieves then you are a lawful thief without shifty abilities but with tracking and animal and plant talking using the thief skill rolls (got this idea from a DD thread over at ODD74; credit where credit is due).
Rogue/Thief
Ref, I want to be a ROGUE / THIEF! Okay, three possible answers, depending upon which campaign setting I am running:
1. No. You are all capable of exploring and performing a heist.
2. Okay, in my high fantasy campaign I call that a "scout." See my house rules. Enjoy it while you can, I am considering removing that as an option.
3. Okay, let's take a look at GH together.
What do y'all think?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 9, 2015 18:29:56 GMT -5
I think that backporting the "classic" AD&D era player-types to OD&D can be a valuable mental exercise, helping to move our perspective toward an OD&D-esque paradigm. It's almost a "rite of passage"; once we've made that mental leap, we're starting to think "old-school"  A few comments to toss into the mix... O&D generally doesn't require high ability scores to "qualify" for any class (at least not in the 3LBBs). Prime requisities are used to encourage players to select a class appropriate to the scores, but a player can usually choose any class. Ref, I want to be a BARD! Okay, if you have a fighting man with an above average charisma score you just need to purchase an enchanted and portable musical instrument. That will be (I roll 3d6) 1,500 gp. You will have to keep it maintained at 1% gp accrued from then on. With it you can charm person at lvl 4, monster at lvl 7, hold person at lvl 7, hold monster at lvl 10. You can read magic but we will use some house ruling from the CM table for whether you read a scroll successfully or not. (sidetrack) I don't buy into the argument that "everyone is a fighter" becuase it devalues the fighter himself. The fighter has very impressive combat benefits and requires (overall) the most XP of any class in order to earn them. These benefits are, IMHO, for the fighter alone. If everyone gets the fighter's benefits, why shouldn't everyone get the M-U's and cleric's benefits as well? (/sidetrack) (back on topic...) I would prefer to base a bard on the cleric's XP/HD/Etc. progression. The bard could easily be a figure who carries a musical instrument rather that a Cross. He should be able to read languages, and possibly read magic, detect magic, detect evil, etc. Requiring the cleric's XP totals, I don't beleive the bard need have any innate "magical" power to charm; these powers could easily be vested in magical instruments that the bard might find. I would, perhaps, consider giving a heroic-tier bard a +1 on reaction checks, and a superheroic-tier bard a +2 on reaction checks, putting him firmly in his own specialist niche that focusses on a different play style. Ref, I want to be an ILLUSIONIST! Okay. Why would you want to do that? Or, use my psuedo-non-magical illusionist  Ref, I want to be a PALADIN! Okay, if your lawful fighting man... Or... you're a lawful cleric who uses fighter XP/HD/etc. and has the fighter's weapons. Ref, I want to be a RANGER! Okay, if you have a fighting man... Or... you're a fighter who can only own ever own that which he can carry, can never employ hirelings, and is only allowed half as many retainers as his charisma would allow. He tracks (as the DD thief), never gets lost in the wilderness, and moves an additinal hex each day overland. I have grown weary of the thief already. ... Rogue/Thief Ref, I want to be a ROGUE / THIEF! Okay, three possible answers, depending upon which campaign setting I am running: 1. No. You are all capable of exploring and performing a heist. 2. Okay, in my high fantasy campaign I call that a "scout." See my house rules. Enjoy it while you can, I am considering removing that as an option. 3. Okay, let's take a look at GH together. IMHO the thief is the most misunderstood archetype in D&D (and it doesn't help any that EGG's % skills implementation was a bit of a botch). The thief is not just a sneaky fighter; he is just a sneak who is not meant to fight. The thief's special abilities are not things anyone can do; they are abilities that are special to the thief. |
|
todd
Prospector
Posts: 75 
|
Post by todd on Jul 10, 2015 10:04:06 GMT -5
Game rules and mechanics are like insurance, you hope you never have to use them, but ultimately they're in place for the protection of all parties. The mechanics and rules, the definitions, they protect a player against GM fiat run amok and protect the GM against player excessive self-indulgence. A friend of mine runs a series of superhero one-shots with his friends-- they use only the simplest, crudest game mechanics and those only for conflict resolution. They can do this because they all know the superheroes and villains in play and have a shared understanding of their capabilities. They don't need any reference document to tell them what Spiderman can do, what he will do and what he won't. They all know. It becomes a lot dicier when we're talking about broad archetypes like those described in character classes. Your concept of a character class and mine could be very different. By using a class to codify our expectations, we can bring them into sync and ensure, as much as possible, that we're both getting what we want. I feel like there's a tendency to be constrictive in how we consider player classes but we have to remember that the reason why thieves, rangers, illusionists, etc. showed up in the first place was because players and GMs of the time wanted them and were either clamoring for official versions and/or creating the classes themselves. I LOVE the idea of bespoke classes, designed essentially as one-offs to fit a player's particular character idea. My thought would be to use the core classes as models or bases for creating a custom class: - Pure Combatant: Fighting Man base;
- Versatile Character (ie. some combat, some non-combat specialties or arcane abilities): Cleric base;
- Pure Specialist (ie. minimal/no combat, all non-combat specialties or acane abilities): Magic-User base.
So, depending on the character concept, one player's thief might be more a pure specialist burglar and another's might be more of a versatile scoundrel. One bard might be more of a battle-hardened skald, another might be a Robin Hood style lute-player in tights sitting in the trees specialist. As for barbarians, I don't like the concept but if the player wanted to be a berserker type frenzied fighter, I'd maybe start with a pure combatant, lose the heavy armor and shield, and add in some sort of battle rage. |
|
|
|
Post by fearghus on Jul 10, 2015 11:33:28 GMT -5
tetramorph, I like the ideas and how you didn't bloat with mechanics. The more I tinker around with making new classes and modifying the old ones to fit into the theme of my campaign settings, the more I really do like the idea of "rulings over rules". As in just providing flavor text to the class with as little mechanics as possible. I go back and forth with how much mechanics to put in. At first it tends to be a lot, and then after thinking about it the rules are backed off a bit. As for barbarians, I don't like the concept but if the player wanted to be a berserker type frenzied fighter, I'd maybe start with a pure combatant, lose the heavy armor and shield, and add in some sort of battle rage. I concur. The term "barbarian" as a class does not sit well with me. I prefer berserker. There was a book that had a character based in the middle-east. He was a prince and was able to enter a berserker rage through the taste of blood, and it was a skill taught to the royalty. Just as the fighter can be a knight, knave, faris or whatever from any culture, I'd like to be able to use a berserker in the same manner. This assumes the decision to make it into its own class (or subclass) instead of saying, "Ok, you are a fighter and can get really mad on occasion". While tooling around with a Carolingian setting, my paladin was not a class or subclass, but a named level of fighter. The intent is that they had to be lawful, but there was no real benefit at this time other than being able to state the title in certain social situations. A bit anti-climactic, I know. Carolingian Fighting-man
1 Armiger....arms bearer
2 Adherant...one that is loyal to the cause
3 Advocate...one that defends the cause
4 Herald.....one that actively advocates
5 Exemplar...one that exemplifies a cause
6 Paragon....a model to be copied
7 Champion...one that shows marked superiority
8 Paladin....a leading champion (Roland, et al)
9 Lord.......(Charlemagne)
After reading some stories by Lloyd Alexander I became really interested in reworking the bard. This version doesn't work to well if there is no overland travel, or if campaign time is not tracked. Also the abilities are only intended to work with lawful lords, maybe some neutral, and only chaotics if the Ref has some adventure idea intended: BardAny fighting-man of 4 HD, may train to become a bard. The PR for the fighting-man from now on is ignored. A bard with intelligence and charisma of 15+ gains experience at the normal rate. A bard with an intelligence or charisma score between 13 and 14 gains exp at -10%. An intelligence or charisma score below 12 at -20%. The bard is skilled in history, lore, and prose. A bard that inspires a lord may request lodging in the lords home, supplies for his current company or horses for his current company. A lord will do so only once unless the bard provide wealth and renown upon his benefactor. The bard character is indisposed for the winter months of the campaign year. It is at this time that the character is training. At 9th level and later the character need not perform this series of education. Clark Ashton Smith wrote about several thieves in his Hyperborea such as Satampra and Vixeela. I like having a separate thief class outside of the fighting man. My only real change is using a d6 skill based mechanic instead of the percentile die and it is in regards to "...all manner of stealth, acrobatics, athletics, and larceny". So, I don't actually spell out the abilities. Since I keep backstab for the thief, I also don't have a separate assassin class. Assassin's are just a club of thieves focusing on the killing part instead of the larceny. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 10, 2015 13:53:25 GMT -5
I think that backporting the "classic" AD&D era player-types to OD&D can be a valuable mental exercise, helping to move our perspective toward an OD&D-esque paradigm. It's almost a "rite of passage"; once we've made that mental leap, we're starting to think "old-school" Well, ways, I'd like to think that I qualified for "OS" before I posted this thread. But, oh well! Agreed about not requiring scores for classes. But I am exactly imagining situation where people want to bend a classical class in a tailored direction. I think it is okay to look at attribute scores to get a hint of that, without going ape crazy. But, if you want to, you can convince me to drop this too. You usually do. I don't see your sidetrack as a sidetrack at all, Ways. I feel conflicted about what you are saying here. I will try to be succinct: I affirm your desire to show that the fighter is not a generic person, but a real class in its own right, with stats peculiar to it that confirm the fact. And you are right. But two things: 1. I am not trying to create new classes. I am trying to mod the core classes in order to give players the tailoring they want but keep it within general 0e parameters. That leads me to looking at which class serves best to mod for a given request. 2. Going back to CM everyone kind of is a fighter. Heroes are mods of normal soldiers ("generic fighters," maybe?), wizards mod heroes. No clerics yet, but I imagine they would have been a mod to heroes as well. Yes, I like this point about basing the bard upon the cleric. Consider the point taken. There is a post below I will address soon that states this principle very well. The magic is in the magical instrument in my version -- that's why he has to drop significant gold to get one. Very nice. Very fun. Thanks for sharing! Yes, I get it, and me likey, but what is the detriment, so as "balance" (in a very unbalanc-y OS kind of way, of course, ahem). Yes, me likey. The thief may be the most misunderstood archetype because he does not actually represent an archetype. A trope, maybe, but perhaps not an archetype. And that is why some would argue that any character is a thief -- they just need to role play well. Thief skills seem to me to kill role-play. At least that is what I am experiencing. But perhaps I haven't seen a DM run one well, and I therefore have not been able to learn by imitation. That said, I really do like your idea for distinguishing the thief as clearly someone who AVOIDS fighting unless he has to. I think that would mean taking away the traditional "back stab" thing. Just get that stuff all the way out of it. Thanks for the interaction. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 10, 2015 13:57:57 GMT -5
I LOVE the idea of bespoke classes, designed essentially as one-offs to fit a player's particular character idea. My thought would be to use the core classes as models or bases for creating a custom class: - Pure Combatant: Fighting Man base;
- Versatile Character (ie. some combat, some non-combat specialties or arcane abilities): Cleric base;
- Pure Specialist (ie. minimal/no combat, all non-combat specialties or acane abilities): Magic-User base.
So, depending on the character concept, one player's thief might be more a pure specialist burglar and another's might be more of a versatile scoundrel. One bard might be more of a battle-hardened skald, another might be a Robin Hood style lute-player in tights sitting in the trees specialist. As for barbarians, I don't like the concept but if the player wanted to be a berserker type frenzied fighter, I'd maybe start with a pure combatant, lose the heavy armor and shield, and add in some sort of battle rage. Todd, I totally love this. This strips the archetypes down from any flavor what-so-ever to the core "skeleton" of the class in a very helpful way. So, one of waysoftheearth's thieves would fit into your "pure specialist" category. No armor so he can cast spells, ahem, I mean, pick locks, etc.? I like it. I just have trouble roll- playing it. Maybe I just need to learn better how to role play the thief. If, also, this is the case, then perhaps I should have written something more like this: Paladin Hey, ref, I want to be a PALADIN! Okay, you are a lawful cleric! Enjoy! I like that even better. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 10, 2015 13:59:54 GMT -5
tetramorph, I like the ideas and how you didn't bloat with mechanics. The more I tinker around with making new classes and modifying the old ones to fit into the theme of my campaign settings, the more I really do like the idea of "rulings over rules". As in just providing flavor text to the class with as little mechanics as possible. I go back and forth with how much mechanics to put in. At first it tends to be a lot, and then after thinking about it the rules are backed off a bit. Thanks, man. And, yes, I agree that it is about paring down mechanics, not building up. Maybe that is why waysoftheearth doesn't want me using ability scores to defining anything. Hmm. Almost thou persuadest me. Thanks for the other stuff to munch on. |
|
todd
Prospector
Posts: 75
|
Post by todd on Jul 10, 2015 15:15:38 GMT -5
While tooling around with a Carolingian setting, my paladin was not a class or subclass, but a named level of fighter. The intent is that they had to be lawful, but there was no real benefit at this time other than being able to state the title in certain social situations. I think it would be awesome if the level names had real mechanical meaning-- imagine that the paladin name level brought you an extra ability but at a cost. For instance: At 8th level you can choose the title of Paladin. If you so choose, you must swear an oath to the church of your faith. By doing so, you agree to tithe all but the possessions you can carry on your person or single steed. In return, as long as you remain in good faith to the tenets of your belief and tithe regularly, you gain the following ability: Detect Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic (as appropriate to your religion), available a number of times per day and cast as if by a magic user of the same level. Thieves are tough. Is Conan a thief? Is Robin Hood a thief? Is Indiana Jones? There isn't a single iconic thief that is the tentpole for the class. Maybe it would be interesting to think about the classes as methodologies chosen to accomplish goals. If I could read the minds of a party of four characters standing before the yawning opening to a cave, they might express their methods like this: - Fighter: I want to take
- Cleric: I want to cleanse
- Magic-User: I want to learn
- Thief: I want to steal
When I think of steal in this context, I think of "To get or take secretly or artfully". I think that's the thief. He's someone who's chosen to fulfill his goals by taking what he needs secretly or artfully-- burglars, charlatans, confidence men. Of course, any character can try to do that for any reason, or no reason at all, but it's not their core belief. If a character is a fighter, regardless of whatever else he believes, ultimately he believes he's going to have to take things by force of arms. If he doesn't, he's not really a fighter (or he chose his class poorly!). A thief isn't about fighting, he's about avoiding fighting at all costs. As far as relying on die rolls-- maybe part of it is not forcing the thief to make the rolls. I really like the concept of encouraging as few rolls as possible. Maybe tell your thief that if he describes his actions well, he can forgo the roll to succeed, provided the circumstances or situation doesn't require a roll for whatever reason. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2015 18:52:44 GMT -5
I'd like to think that I qualified for "OS" before I posted this thread. But, oh well! My remark applied as much to me as anyone else; I didn't mean to imply any lack on anyone's part. Apologies if I came across that way  Going back to CM everyone kind of is a fighter. Heroes are mods of normal soldiers ("generic fighters," maybe?), wizards mod heroes. No clerics yet, but I imagine they would have been a mod to heroes as well. I don't think this is quite accurate tetramorph. In CM everyone, including wizards and dragons, can participate in fighting. This doesn't imply that everyone, including wizards and dragons, should be transposed into the fighting-man player-type in D&D-land. On the contrary, wizards have their own player-type and normal troops are represented as Men (and Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, etc.), as described in M&T. Yes, I get it, and me likey, but what is the detriment, so as "balance" (in a very unbalanc-y OS kind of way, of course, ahem). Using fighter XP the paladin will require more XP than the cleric, and a lot more beyond top level. Give the paladin no PR if you want to slow his progress by up to 10% further. Give the paladin no missile weapons, if ye must. Do as Arneson did and make the paladin tithe 40-90% of all wealth to his Order: "Money ... may be spent by the Clerical type once 40% -90% (roll 6-sided die) is sent to (headquarters)", FFC p51. Make the paladin live by a code of conduct. Etc. I really do like your idea for distinguishing the thief as clearly someone who AVOIDS fighting unless he has to. I like it too, but I can't be credited for it: " Thieves: This class is different from any of the others. Thieves are generally not meant to fight," from EGG's article "The Thief!" appearing in The Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #9 p8-9, circa June 1974. This being based, of course, on Wagner's even earlier original thief. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2015 22:42:18 GMT -5
There isn't a single iconic thief that is the tentpole for the class. The same could be said for fighters and magic-users; there is not one, but a dozen (at least!) icon heroes that share the load for the fighting class, and (at least?) a handful of iconic wizards. Rangers were clearly built after Tolkien's Aragorn, but even within Tolkien's writings the rangers are a creed (several creeds, in fact) not an individual, and a number of individual rangers feature in LoTRs. Thieves may not be built on an Aragon-esque figure, but Smeagol is certainly an iconic sneak. Tolkien aside, there are many fictional thieves to draw from, including these: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_gentleman_thievesen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_professional_thieves |
|
todd
Prospector
Posts: 75
|
Post by todd on Jul 11, 2015 7:29:40 GMT -5
I didn't mean there was literally only one but the icons of the heavily armed and armored fighting man, Boromir, Arhur, Lancelot, etc. are cut from the same cloth in the same way Merlin and Gandalf and the witches of Macbeth are and that Robin Hood and Smeagol aren't. I think once you drill down to something more specific, like sneak, the archetypes become much clearer. I actually like that name better than thief-- it's more specific and descriptive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jul 11, 2015 8:34:26 GMT -5
Wow, guys this is a fantastic thread. As an aside I think Simon Templar is my favorite fictional thief. You are all keeping me busy giving out exalts as I catch up on my reading of the entire forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Jul 17, 2015 8:06:05 GMT -5
I had a conversation with a new schooler (not that there is anything wrong with that) who said, "yeah, but I wouldn't want to play OS, I like playing drow elves (is that how you spell that?)." I said, okay, so you are a chaotic elf. She said, yeah, but I want to look like a drow. Okay, I said, that is what your character now looks like. But, she continued, what about the special abilities and knowledge? Okay, I said, you've got 'em. We can discuss if that affects mechanics during play. What do y'all think? The original post in this thread is quite insightful, as it harkens back to the really early days of OD&D when we didn't have all of those options. What you did was pick of of a few limited options and then imagine how you wanted to play that character, and then you just did it. For example, I played several "paladin" characters before there was a class option for it. You don't need to have cool powers as much as you need to have a Paladin attitude. I was inspired by King Arthur stories and had my character act like a knight and went on quests to slay monsters and rescue maidens. My point is that a "paladin" can be its own special class but doesn't have to be. Too many players pick Paladin (to harp on one specific example) because of the mechanical advantages, not because they want to act like a Paladin. OD&D lends itself to creativity. What you could try is to start with your core three or core four classes, then allow something like "feats" every couple of levels. (And this is best if there isn't a pre-determined "feat" list. Make the players think about what they want to do, rather than cherry pick the best things from a list that you created.) If someone wants to be a Ranger, for example, let him select the Fighting Man option and maybe start tracking at level 2 or 3. If someone wants to be an Assassin, make them kill NPCs for a while before you award some sort of backstab power. If someone wants to be a Paladin, make them act that way for a while and then maybe grant them a Paladin ability if they accomplish something significant for the forces of Law. It's a matter of horse-cart or cart-horse. Let this stuff come out in play. Too many players say "I can't wait until level XX so that I can do YY." Turn it around on them and if they act like their character concept then reward then for it. Let them "build" their character as they go instead of mindlessly following a template. Just a few thoughts from an old guy. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 17, 2015 8:34:11 GMT -5
Thanks, finarvyn, for getting and affirming the spirit of my OP. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jul 17, 2015 22:42:53 GMT -5
Basic lends itself better to tacking on dozens of new classes.
OD&D runs best with fighting-men, magic-users, and an occasional dwarf or hobbit.
|
|
todd
Prospector
Posts: 75
|
Post by todd on Jul 17, 2015 22:45:42 GMT -5
Basic lends itself better to tacking on dozens of new classes. OD&D runs best with fighting-men, magic-users, and an occasional dwarf or hobbit. What makes you say that? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 18, 2015 4:47:11 GMT -5
The 3LBB+CM Elf is a perilous figure and an outstanding feature of the original D&D, surely!
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Jul 18, 2015 11:28:31 GMT -5
Thanks, finarvyn, for getting and affirming the spirit of my OP. I nearly quoted the whole post, since I feel like I've lived through this particular discussion many times with various players over the decades. I think that a lot of players today are used to having all of the rules spelled out for them (along with detailed lists of advantages for each character option chosen) that they have a hard time with the notion that you can develop a character's personality and characteristics through play. That goes hand in hand with 400 page hardback rulebooks.  |
|
todd
Prospector
Posts: 75
|
Post by todd on Jul 18, 2015 11:58:30 GMT -5
I think it has to do with trust. And wanting every play build (or at least theirs) to be equally optimal.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jul 18, 2015 18:15:08 GMT -5
OD&D was written with fighting men and magic-users in mind. Basic was written after a dozen official classes had been published for od&d, and was constructed to more elegantly accomodate a variety of classes. You can throw together a modified spell list and assign a HD in 5 minutes, which will blend perfectly with basic's classes. The same class would seem awkward and redundant to the main two classes of od&d. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 18, 2015 20:04:37 GMT -5
You can throw together a modified spell list and assign a HD in 5 minutes, which will blend perfectly with basic's classes. The same class would seem awkward and redundant to the main two classes of od&d. It's relatively rare to see a "new" class that genuinely works without crowding out the "niche" of an existing figure. My eyes do tend to glaze over the "new" fighter types that are really just better fighters--particularly where proper fighters aren't given their due to begin with! |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Jul 19, 2015 6:28:07 GMT -5
You can throw together a modified spell list and assign a HD in 5 minutes, which will blend perfectly with basic's classes. The same class would seem awkward and redundant to the main two classes of od&d. It's relatively rare to see a "new" class that genuinely works without crowding out the "niche" of an existing figure. My eyes do tend to glaze over the "new" fighter types that are really just better fighters--particularly where proper fighters aren't given their due to begin with! True dat. Seems like folks build new classes so that they get an edge, not so much to fill a "hole" in the options. I still get annoyed by the people who play Paladins but don't want to act like Paladins. (I know, broken record.) They want kewl powerz but not the responsibility that goes with them.  |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Jul 19, 2015 11:44:23 GMT -5
I LOVE the idea of bespoke classes, designed essentially as one-offs to fit a player's particular character idea. My thought would be to use the core classes as models or bases for creating a custom class: - Pure Combatant: Fighting Man base;
- Versatile Character (ie. some combat, some non-combat specialties or arcane abilities): Cleric base;
- Pure Specialist (ie. minimal/no combat, all non-combat specialties or acane abilities): Magic-User base.
So, depending on the character concept, one player's thief might be more a pure specialist burglar and another's might be more of a versatile scoundrel. One bard might be more of a battle-hardened skald, another might be a Robin Hood style lute-player in tights sitting in the trees specialist. As for barbarians, I don't like the concept but if the player wanted to be a berserker type frenzied fighter, I'd maybe start with a pure combatant, lose the heavy armor and shield, and add in some sort of battle rage. This is a wise way to handle the 'special' classes and the player who has a particular vision in mind. I often start with the class and decide whether I want it in my world and why I want it there - test, probe, examine, and then set class abilities accordingly. I am not keen on the Barbarian, for instance: as far as I'm concerned Conan is a high-level Fighter with excellent characteristic scores, who has opted to maintain speed and mobility by going unarmoured. If we want the classic frenzied fighter who drinks the noxious brew to work herself up before battle then that's the brew at work and not the class: a wizard could drink that stuff and go just as mental. I am, however, very keen on the Paladin, Ranger and Assassin as representing the peak of mortal capability - each one represents what a paragon of the alignment and an exceptional characteristic or two can create, and I have built Titan's religions and cultures around the presence of these classes. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 4, 2015 12:37:09 GMT -5
Waysoftheearth wrote:
Agreed. Modifying the existing classes/archetypes to fit a particular concept, that of a ranger, a scout, a brigand etc. places us within the bounds of Chainmail really, as we are essentially penning another unit on the field, much like offering a description of heavy foot taking the form of levies or Landsknecht. Very Oe.
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Sept 10, 2015 5:45:53 GMT -5
Perhaps the solution to the "I want a new class" puzzle would be to allow each character to pick one special thing he/she can do that "breaks" the rules of the existing core classes and fits the character concept. For example, the guy who wants a ranger could have a fighting man with some sort of "wilderness survival" abililty that could include tracking and living off the land. Not listed in the rules but makes the concept work. My wife always said that she thought that witches were just magic users who could heal, so perhaps she could have one healing cleric spell as one of those on her MU's spell list. To further the thought, why limit this to abilites of other classes? Perhaps one person might choose "prince" as his special to gain royal standing, or "wealthy" to become a Bruce Wayne type of character, or "military rank" to be a general when he's not on an adventure. Clearly, the game master would have to regulate which special abilities were legal and which were not, and a lot of this could be up to the player to suggest what they wanted. This could allow for each character to be special while not introducing new "classes" that need to be developed and balanced. The new-ish RPG "13th Age" does something like this with its "one unique thing" where a player can suggest one thing that makes this character different from all others. Just a thought.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Sept 11, 2015 8:55:49 GMT -5
Simply changing your gear has a big effect.
Chainmail+spear = viking
Plate+warhammer = knight
Leather+two handed sword = scotsman or samurai
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Apr 3, 2020 11:09:06 GMT -5
This is one of the original threads on the forum and I figure most have not seen it. Give it a read and then give us your take on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Apr 12, 2020 17:00:00 GMT -5
I will have to type up a note and copy and paste it in this thread tonight. This thread gave me some stuff to think about which lines up with a few blog posts that I have read recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on May 2, 2020 4:02:11 GMT -5
I will have to type up a note and copy and paste it in this thread tonight. This thread gave me some stuff to think about which lines up with a few blog posts that I have read recently. did you forget about this? We would like to see your stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 15, 2022 10:09:08 GMT -5
I am bumping this thread because we have a lot of new members who have not seen it and it brings up a lot of excellent points.
|
|
