3rd Edition Issue #1: Classes
jonah...@mindspring.com
extent, but since I'm an experienced AD&D DM, and just bought the
books, I will issue my own problems with the game.
Glaring issue #1: The character classes, or "Diablo II / AD&D".
Is it a coincidence that the Diablo II edition of the AD&D game was
released a few months before? How come they resemble those
Diablo/Diablo II classes?
In the 2nd edition, you have four classes: Mage, Thief, Cleric and
Fighter. Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It was
a response to the 1st edition's confusing melange of classes. (In
addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
3rd edition stumbles into 1st editions problem.
Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
In short, WHY CONFUSE THE ISSUE?!?!!? This is what CHARACTER KITS are
for. Why create a bunch of unnecessary classes? FOUR is enough --
mages=magic, clerics=religion, rogues=thieving, fighters=fighting. From
there all other classes evolve. Even in the FIRST edition those classes
were subclasses.
(The most troublesome being druids and bards, who have their own spell
system, but even THAT was dealt with in 2nd ed. as spell spheres.)
Sorry, but barbarians are just fighters with a different history and
some minor class modifications. Read the Fighter's Handbook.
The biggest joke is "wizards" and "sorcerors". Jeez, if you're going to
be THAT frivolous with classes, how about making Necromancers a
seperate class. That's a class in Diablo II, too.
Already I can see a 4th edition coming out in a year or so to do the
same thing that 2nd edition did with the 1st. Then again, we're talking
about a company that issues new rules every six months for a
collectible card game.
* * *
The other problem I have is the freely changing multiclass rules. Face
it -- most people, even the best and cream of the crop, cannot pick up
skills willy-nilly. They are mostly INBORN traits. I can learn public
speaking, but that won't make me a good orator, no matter HOW MUCH I
study it. I can paint, but no matter how much I practice, I'll never be
Leonardo da Vinci. Face it -- people are born to do certain skills.
Similiarly, you can't have
fighter/cleric/thief/barbarian/wizard/sorceror. Yes, that's
overstating, but you can see the problem -- as a DM, I'll likely have
some nerd approaching me with some character like that, and *I* will be
the jerk for disallowing that character.
That's all I can think of -- I haven't gotten beyond the classes yet.
By the way, what happened to female dwarves beards? It may seem
unattractive to players playing the game, but dwarven males find it
attractive. Somehow the halflings don't seem like Tolkienian halflings -
- what happened to their heads? Did God smash a mallet on their heads
so they could stack easily?
Jonah Falcon
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bryan J. Maloney
> In the 2nd edition, you have four classes: Mage, Thief, Cleric and
> Fighter. Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It was
Obviously, you must have the 2d edition released on the planet Zahrquahr.
The rest of us live on planet Earth.
Lemme see: Ranger, Paladin, Bard--there's a few right there you forgot.
> a response to the 1st edition's confusing melange of classes. (In
> addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
And just how is it impossible to create classes in the 3rd edition?
Please explain this to us, or are you talking about the moronic rules in
the 2d edition DMG that COULD NOT be used to create the official classes?
> 3rd edition stumbles into 1st editions problem.
>
> Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
> II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
> sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
Prove that they are "subclasses".
> In short, WHY CONFUSE THE ISSUE?!?!!? This is what CHARACTER KITS are
> for. Why create a bunch of unnecessary classes? FOUR is enough --
No, character kits are for munchkin weenies.
> Sorry, but barbarians are just fighters with a different history and
> some minor class modifications. Read the Fighter's Handbook.
And the evidence you have that the "Fighter's Handbook" MUST be the ONLY truth?
> The other problem I have is the freely changing multiclass rules. Face
> it -- most people, even the best and cream of the crop, cannot pick up
> skills willy-nilly. They are mostly INBORN traits. I can learn public
Skill is mostly innate? I've generally found this attitude common among
the tragically inept and doltish.
--
For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
Dr Nuncheon
>In the 2nd edition, you have four classes: Mage, Thief, Cleric and
>Fighter. Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It was
>addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
>
>
>Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
>II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
>sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
>
>for.
For confusing the issue? I completely agree.
What exactly is so 'confusing' about having a Barbarian and a Fighter?
There are fundamental differences between the Barbarian and the Fighter -
in abilities, in class skills, in the powers they get as they advance -
which is why they are separate classes. Same for the Paladin, the Ranger,
etc.
>Sorry, but barbarians are just fighters with a different history and
>some minor class modifications. Read the Fighter's Handbook.
Er, no...read the 3E Player's Handbook. The Fighter's Handbook is for 2e
and is irrelevant. There are significant and fundamental differences
between Fighters and Barbarians. Unless you call a completely different
set of special abilities 'minor'.
>The biggest joke is "wizards" and "sorcerors". Jeez, if you're going to
>be THAT frivolous with classes, how about making Necromancers a
>seperate class. That's a class in Diablo II, too.
Oh yeah, you know, they only use magic in a completely different way than
Wizards do. We might as well make Clerics a type of Magic-User too.
Necromancers are a type of specialist wizard - the closest thing to
'subclasses' that D&D3e has. Why? Because they basically use all of the
wizard rules. Sorcerors don't, therefore sticking them in as a 'subclass'
of wizard is pretty silly.
When it takes as long to describe the differences between a main class and
a subclass as it would to describe the subclass on it's own, then it's
time to make the subclass a real class.
>The other problem I have is the freely changing multiclass rules. Face
>it -- most people, even the best and cream of the crop, cannot pick up
>skills willy-nilly. They are mostly INBORN traits. I can learn public
>speaking, but that won't make me a good orator, no matter HOW MUCH I
>study it. I can paint, but no matter how much I practice, I'll never be
>Leonardo da Vinci. Face it -- people are born to do certain skills.
>Similiarly, you can't have
>fighter/cleric/thief/barbarian/wizard/sorceror. Yes, that's
>overstating, but you can see the problem -- as a DM, I'll likely have
>some nerd approaching me with some character like that, and *I* will be
>the jerk for disallowing that character.
Unless you're starting at 6th+ level, you *won't* have anyonme coming to
you with a character like that. On the other hand, if they have a good
story for it, why not let them? Mind you, coming up with a good, coherent
story for that is going to be a heck of a problem. But then it's their
problem and not yours.
>That's all I can think of -- I haven't gotten beyond the classes yet.
>By the way, what happened to female dwarves beards? It may seem
>unattractive to players playing the game, but dwarven males find it
>attractive.
> Somehow the halflings don't seem like Tolkienian halflings -
>- what happened to their heads? Did God smash a mallet on their heads
>so they could stack easily?
I really can't believe how bent out of shape people get over the art. It
hasn't really changed my impression of the races any, and there's nothing
stopping anyone from saying 'in my game, female dwarves have beards too'.
It's not even like it's a major game balance issue, but the way people are
talking about it you'd think that WOTC was hiring the White Wolf Canon
Enforcing Ninja Death Squads to put contracts out on the people with
bearded dwarves and chubby halflings. I mean...OK, you don't like it.
Move on. It's not really that important. It doesn't make the rules suck.
J
--
INTERNET SEEMS TO BE FULL OF MILLIONS OF | Jeff Johnston
IDIOTS & LUNATICS ! ! - c2 (ts...@my-deja.com) | jeffj @ io . com
incrdbil
>Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
>II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
>sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
I can see your point. th Barbarian seems really to stick out. If we
are going to have a Barbarian Class, then why not a
Swashbuckler/Cavalier/Combat plumber class.
Perhaps it's due to the basic inflexibility of the class abilities-all
Fighters know how to use almost every weapon in the world, all
fighters chose from the same feats, all fighters train in the same
types of armor.
Adding a little flexibility (such as a larger list of class abilities
you chould choose from) might have worked, so that Barbarian could
have been folded back into the fighter class.
Rangers and Paladins probably deserve their own class simply due to
magical ability. However, using a flexible system so you could make
deity/culture based Paladins might have been nice, or create Rangers
who never learned magic spells, but gained more Duidic abiklities,
etc.
I'm not saying the current class abilities are bad..just a tad
cookie-cutter style. But then they probably plan on selling an
expansion to fix that :)
>
>Sorry, but barbarians are just fighters with a different history and
>some minor class modifications.
I have to agree--having different skills o whatever doesnt really
change what they are--fighters. They just grew up wild and learned
different skills. they aren't as distinct as the current Ranger and
Paladin are.
As for Sorcerors--they are less a distinct class--they are simply
mages with an alternate spell system to satisfy those who don't like
the pre-memorized spell system. When it comes down to it, they are
mages--same spells, just a slightly different spell system from what I
read. the other differences are just sort of made up to justify the
difference between the classes.
This isn't a bad thing necessarily--giving players the choice in magic
styles is a good thing, but could it have been wrapped up into a
singel class with two different styles of casting?
>
>Already I can see a 4th edition coming out in a year or so to do the
>same thing that 2nd edition did with the 1st. Then again, we're talking
>about a company that issues new rules every six months for a
>collectible card game.
>
I would hope that they have learned that changing editions too quickly
is not a good thing for RPG's. Unlike CCG's, RPG'rs feel the
pressutre to "update" much less.
>* * *
>
. Yes, that's
>overstating, but you can see the problem -- as a DM, I'll likely have
>some nerd approaching me with some character like that, and *I* will be
>the jerk for disallowing that character.
No--your the GM, and when you turn down a character made for a silly
powergaming reason, even if it is book leagal, you are not being a
jerk. No rules system is safe from abuse, and the DM is the primary
defender of game balance for his campaign.
Darius Kalshane
> In the 2nd edition, you have four classes: Mage, Thief, Cleric and
> Fighter. Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It
was
> a response to the 1st edition's confusing melange of classes.
For starters, kits didn't become available until after the PHB came out.
And even then, they were optional rules. Third, in 2nd ed. classes were
divided into Warrior, Rogue, Priest and Wizard groups. Technically, all
classes were subclasses of those groups. Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Mage
were just the basic classes. If you don't like the other classes, don't
use them.
>(In
> addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
>
> 3rd edition stumbles into 1st editions problem.
Okay, first you're complaining there are too many classes, then you
complain that you can't make more? Make up your mind. And the 3rd
edition DMG gives advice on how to make new classes, just no hard-cut
rules. I found this annoying, but equally annoying was the 2nd edition
system that produced a class that no matter how many restrictions you
gave it, would still end up getting screwed on XP after 3 or 4 levels.
> Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
> II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
> sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
The Barbarian class was in first addition. Didn't you watch the cartoon,
for crying out loud?!? Seriously, though, they're not a new class or
Diablo-inspired, they're bringing back a 1st edition class. Same with
Monk. The only new class is Sorcerer. And the only purpose the whole
subclass thing presented in 2nd ed accomplished was to make any easy
chart with only four categories on it for ThacO and Saving Throws.
Now that the classes are balanced and all use the same XP chart, the
subclass distinctions are unneccessary. I personally like the dvision.
> In short, WHY CONFUSE THE ISSUE?!?!!? This is what CHARACTER KITS are
> for. Why create a bunch of unnecessary classes? FOUR is enough --
> mages=magic, clerics=religion, rogues=thieving, fighters=fighting.
From
> there all other classes evolve. Even in the FIRST edition those
classes
> were subclasses.
Kits were broken, for the most part. And they were also optional rules
found in splatbooks. By your logic, if anyone wanted to play more than a
generic fighter, cleric, thief or mage, they would have to shell out the
cash for an appropriate splatbook. Seems silly to me.
> (The most troublesome being druids and bards, who have their own spell
> system, but even THAT was dealt with in 2nd ed. as spell spheres.)
Personally, I think it makes more sense. It makes the two classes a
little more distinctive, IMO. In 2nd edition, a bard was pretty much a
sucky mage-thief that could sing.
> Sorry, but barbarians are just fighters with a different history and
> some minor class modifications. Read the Fighter's Handbook.
The Fighter's Handbook was an optional rule edition. You're arguing
optional rules versus core rules.
> The biggest joke is "wizards" and "sorcerors". Jeez, if you're going
to
> be THAT frivolous with classes, how about making Necromancers a
> seperate class. That's a class in Diablo II, too.
Wizards and Sorcerers are very different. They both approach magic in a
different way and to different levels of effectiveness. The only
similarities are their spell list and their chance for spell failure in
armor.
> Already I can see a 4th edition coming out in a year or so to do the
> same thing that 2nd edition did with the 1st. Then again, we're
talking
> about a company that issues new rules every six months for a
> collectible card game.
Crack:The Gathering aside, I think WotC did a good job with 3rd edition.
I think the game overall is a drastic improvement over 2nd edtion. And I
don't see a 4th edition for many years to come. Even WW, the kings of
the new edition, at least waits about 3 years between editions. Though
why the have this annoying habit of making 2nd edition better than 1st,
then making 3rd...err, I mean Revised, suck. But that's just my opinion
and totally unrelated.
> The other problem I have is the freely changing multiclass rules. Face
> it -- most people, even the best and cream of the crop, cannot pick up
> skills willy-nilly. They are mostly INBORN traits. I can learn public
> speaking, but that won't make me a good orator, no matter HOW MUCH I
> study it. I can paint, but no matter how much I practice, I'll never
be
> Leonardo da Vinci. Face it -- people are born to do certain skills.
> Similiarly, you can't have
> fighter/cleric/thief/barbarian/wizard/sorceror. Yes, that's
> overstating, but you can see the problem -- as a DM, I'll likely have
> some nerd approaching me with some character like that, and *I* will
be
> the jerk for disallowing that character.
No you're not. You're a jerk for other reasons.:) Sorry, that was too
easy. Seriously, though. Rule O: Check with your DM. You're free to
allow and disallow whatever you want in your game. Personally, I don't
see the new multi-classing rules as such a problem. Maybe someone who
multiclasses into every class is unrealistic, but the character itself
is so spread out he's not going to be able to go toe-to-toe with an
opponent of his level.
> That's all I can think of -- I haven't gotten beyond the classes yet.
> By the way, what happened to female dwarves beards? It may seem
> unattractive to players playing the game, but dwarven males find it
> attractive. Somehow the halflings don't seem like Tolkienian halflings
I don't know what happened to bearded female dwarves. But that can
easily be fixed. And I guess WotC was trying to distance halflings even
further from Tolkien. Though you're perfectly in your rights to change
that in your campaign.
Dr Nuncheon
incrdbil <incr...@flinthills.com> wrote:
>
>>Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
>>II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
>>sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
>
>are going to have a Barbarian Class, then why not a
>Swashbuckler/Cavalier/Combat plumber class.
Well, remember that you can have a 'barbarian Fighter' - a Fighter who has
picked barbarian-style equipment, feats and such - and that is separate
from the Barbarian class (which should more properly be called the
Berserker).
The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
incrdbil
>The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
>Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
>Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
just a few abilities doesn't make a distinct class. they still are
simply a fighter from the wild places. It doesn't ruin the game, but
just points out how they should have had a tad more flexibility in
base class abilities to me.
Ernst Stavro Blofeld
coincidence. The similarities run deeper than the classes (look at the
system for magic items and the choices of regular armor and tell me there's
no connection). But then the latest edition looks like a computer game.
It has a rule for every situation and is geared for power play (munchkins
of the computer era rejoice). All this in mind, I like the new version of
the game. I plan on playing it like I have played the older versions, as a
social game with a roleplaying focus. Not as a game to win.
Your view of the classes shows you have been living in the world of AD&D2E
for so long you can no longer see that it was a unique (and less than
successful) approach to class-based gaming. Just the idea that they had to
publish hundreds of flyer-sized books to suppliment the PHB showed that a
small selection of classes isn't popular. And they broke the 4-basic-class
idea within the PHB itself by making the druid not like the speciaty
priests it was supposed to be an example of, and the paladin, ranger, and
bard which really aren't subclasses of fighter, fighter, and rogue (resp.).
I see three ways the game can be: totally classless (my favorite), core
classes with multiclassing (fighter, wizard, thief only (yes, no cleric)),
multitude of classes without multiclassing (like 2E or 3E or most computer
games). If there is going to be a 4E next year, then you're going to have
to write fast because WotC won't have anything to do with cutting into
their profits from 3E and players won't abide another change for about ten
years.
-Blofeld
Blackberry
from Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:40:22 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>I know that a lot of this stuff has been rehashed, probably, to great
>extent, but since I'm an experienced AD&D DM, and just bought the
>books, I will issue my own problems with the game.
>
>Glaring issue #1: The character classes, or "Diablo II / AD&D".
>
>Is it a coincidence that the Diablo II edition of the AD&D game was
>released a few months before? How come they resemble those
>Diablo/Diablo II classes?
I played the computer version of Diablo. I haven't played Diablo II or the
Diablo "RPG".
IIRC, in Diablo, you could play a Fighter, Rogue, or Wizard. Those are pretty
generic "roles" among fantasy RPGs and fantasy stories in general; whether or
not the RPG actually uses the concept of classes, the assumptions are still
there.
>In the 2nd edition, you have four classes: Mage, Thief, Cleric and
>Fighter. Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It was
>a response to the 1st edition's confusing melange of classes. (In
>addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
>
>3rd edition stumbles into 1st editions problem.
>
>Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
>II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
>sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
I don't know if the barbarian class is inspired by Diablo II or not. It seems
inspired by previous editions' barbarian classes.
>In short, WHY CONFUSE THE ISSUE?!?!!? This is what CHARACTER KITS are
>for. Why create a bunch of unnecessary classes? FOUR is enough --
>mages=magic, clerics=religion, rogues=thieving, fighters=fighting. From
>there all other classes evolve. Even in the FIRST edition those classes
>were subclasses.
You could say that druids are just specialized priests... except then you'd have
to account for them having totally different class abilities than priests,
totally different class skills, etc. When they're that different that they
require separate charts and lists, then I think they should be a separate class.
Also, you could argue that the rogue is just a skill specialist with a
particular focus. But then, you could say that maybe fighting is a skill too,
and maybe all characters should be one class and just distribute their skill
points among fighting, skills, and magic.
>(The most troublesome being druids and bards, who have their own spell
>system, but even THAT was dealt with in 2nd ed. as spell spheres.)
>
>Sorry, but barbarians are just fighters with a different history and
>some minor class modifications. Read the Fighter's Handbook.
No thanks. I stayed as far away from 2nd ed. as I could.
>The biggest joke is "wizards" and "sorcerors". Jeez, if you're going to
>be THAT frivolous with classes, how about making Necromancers a
>seperate class. That's a class in Diablo II, too.
Do Necromancers receive, prepare, and cast their magics in a totally different
way? If so, they may be a good class to create.
>The other problem I have is the freely changing multiclass rules. Face
>it -- most people, even the best and cream of the crop, cannot pick up
>skills willy-nilly. They are mostly INBORN traits. I can learn public
>speaking, but that won't make me a good orator, no matter HOW MUCH I
>study it. I can paint, but no matter how much I practice, I'll never be
>Leonardo da Vinci. Face it -- people are born to do certain skills.
>Similiarly, you can't have
>fighter/cleric/thief/barbarian/wizard/sorceror. Yes, that's
>overstating, but you can see the problem -- as a DM, I'll likely have
>some nerd approaching me with some character like that, and *I* will be
>the jerk for disallowing that character.
There's no such thing as a dilettante, jack-of-all-trades, or Renaissance Man?
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
Peter Seebach
I don't see this as a "glaring" issue.
>Is it a coincidence that the Diablo II edition of the AD&D game was
>released a few months before? How come they resemble those
>Diablo/Diablo II classes?
I dunno.
>In the 2nd edition, you have four classes: Mage, Thief, Cleric and
>Fighter. Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It was
>a response to the 1st edition's confusing melange of classes. (In
>addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
Paladin was a separate class. Different XP table. Kits were an abomination;
randomly unbalanced game rules introduced specially for each kit, with no
real continuity.
Anyway, I would call paladin, ranger, and druid all separate classes. Bard
was effectively a separate class, and *should* have had a separate XP table.
Yes, it was a "reaction" to 1E. It was a cure worse than the disease.
>3rd edition stumbles into 1st editions problem.
I don't see it as a problem, and I don't see it as "stumbling". It turns
out that kits suck, and a broader selection of balanced classes is what's
called for.
>Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
>II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
>sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
No, they are not. Subclasses were a design mistake. Classes seem to work
better.
Barbarians are a useful, interesting, class. They are not, IMHO, just
"a fighter with feats". Druids are not clerics, and never have been. Bards
are a subclass of what, rogue? Rogues don't get spellcasting. Sorcerers
are not at all a subclass; they are a totally different way of getting spells
than wizards.
Finally, monks, most of all, are not a subclass of anything.
>In short, WHY CONFUSE THE ISSUE?!?!!? This is what CHARACTER KITS are
>for.
Because CHARACTER KITS SUCK.
D&D was designed, originally, for classes. They work well.
>Why create a bunch of unnecessary classes? FOUR is enough --
>mages=magic, clerics=religion, rogues=thieving, fighters=fighting. From
>there all other classes evolve. Even in the FIRST edition those classes
>were subclasses.
Monks weren't.
In 1E, and 2E, it was useful to have "subclasses", primarily, and indeed
almost exclusively, because everything necessitated these large tables.
Remember the "attack matrix" thing they used before they had THAC0? Remember
having 10 different XP tables? All that was fixed, much better, by 3E.
>(The most troublesome being druids and bards, who have their own spell
>system, but even THAT was dealt with in 2nd ed. as spell spheres.)
And spell spheres, as implemented in 2E, were an abysmal, stupid, failure.
Druids should get some spells *AT A LOWER LEVEL* than clerics. Not just
"spells clerics don't get". Spells *sooner* or *later*.
>Sorry, but barbarians are just fighters with a different history and
>some minor class modifications. Read the Fighter's Handbook.
I did. It sucked. It was an abysmal, abusive, stinking mass of imbalanced
rules and game-breakers.
>The biggest joke is "wizards" and "sorcerors". Jeez, if you're going to
>be THAT frivolous with classes, how about making Necromancers a
>seperate class. That's a class in Diablo II, too.
I don't see anything especially "frivolous" about it. They have different
methods of using magic. If it's so silly, why not just merge clerics and
mages, too?
>Already I can see a 4th edition coming out in a year or so to do the
>same thing that 2nd edition did with the 1st. Then again, we're talking
>about a company that issues new rules every six months for a
>collectible card game.
No, really, we aren't. These rules, unlike 2E, are viable. 2E was a dramatic
disimprovement over 1E, precisely because it tried to make all the rules
special and unique, with no continuity. Every kit had a unique rule that *did
not exist anywhere else*. No way to compare it with anything. No rules for
interactions.
>The other problem I have is the freely changing multiclass rules. Face
>it -- most people, even the best and cream of the crop, cannot pick up
>skills willy-nilly.
Bullshit. Skill is, by its nature, learned.
>They are mostly INBORN traits. I can learn public
>speaking, but that won't make me a good orator, no matter HOW MUCH I
>study it. I can paint, but no matter how much I practice, I'll never be
>Leonardo da Vinci. Face it -- people are born to do certain skills.
In other words, some people have, say, higher or lower Charisma? WOW!
>Similiarly, you can't have
>fighter/cleric/thief/barbarian/wizard/sorceror. Yes, that's
>overstating, but you can see the problem -- as a DM, I'll likely have
>some nerd approaching me with some character like that, and *I* will be
>the jerk for disallowing that character.
No, you won't, because the rules make it clear than each world is different.
>That's all I can think of -- I haven't gotten beyond the classes yet.
Then maybe you should. In particular, read the DMG.
>attractive. Somehow the halflings don't seem like Tolkienian halflings -
That's because they aren't *supposed* to be.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Beau Yarbrough
Blackberry <le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com> wrote:
> I played the computer version of Diablo. I haven't played Diablo II
or the
> Diablo "RPG".
Both excellent, if you liked the original "Diablo." The current
D&D "Diablo" supplement features the new classes and the setting of the
original game, along with items from the original and "Hellfire."
> I don't know if the barbarian class is inspired by Diablo II or not.
It seems
> inspired by previous editions' barbarian classes.
It also predates "Diablo II" by over a year in playtesting.
Hari the Monk
<jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8q7tsh$kg4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I know that a lot of this stuff has been rehashed, probably, to great
> extent, but since I'm an experienced AD&D DM, and just bought the
> books, I will issue my own problems with the game.
>
>
> released a few months before? How come they resemble those
> Diablo/Diablo II classes?
>
> Fighter. Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It was
> a response to the 1st edition's confusing melange of classes. (In
> addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
>
Uh, I think you left out the Paladin, Ranger, Bard, and Druid(ok, sort of a
Priest class). So you have 7(8 with druid) classes in 2e.
> 3rd edition stumbles into 1st editions problem.
>
> Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
> II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
> sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
Subclasses? I didn't think that the Bard used the same mechanics as the
Rogue. Oh right, he doesn't. Therefore, he is a different class. Same
with Sorcerors for wizards, Druids for Clerics, Barbarians for Fighters(I
don't see any option for Fighters with Rage, or Uncanny Dodge, or any of
that Barbarian stuff). If there is a significant change, then they are no
longer Subclasses.
>
> In short, WHY CONFUSE THE ISSUE?!?!!? This is what CHARACTER KITS are
> for. Why create a bunch of unnecessary classes? FOUR is enough --
> mages=magic, clerics=religion, rogues=thieving, fighters=fighting. From
> there all other classes evolve. Even in the FIRST edition those classes
> were subclasses.
But they aren't any more. A Ranger is more than simply a Fighter/Priest. A
Paladin is more than simply a Fighter/Priest. A Bard is more than simply a
Rogue/Wizard. A Wizard *is* significantly different from a Sorceror. A
Druid *is* significantly different from a Cleric. A Barbarian *is*
significantly different from a Fighter. A Monk *is* significantly different
from any other class. Thus, they all deserve their own subclass.
>
> (The most troublesome being druids and bards, who have their own spell
> system, but even THAT was dealt with in 2nd ed. as spell spheres.)
>
> Sorry, but barbarians are just fighters with a different history and
> some minor class modifications. Read the Fighter's Handbook.
No they aren't. The Fighter's Handbook, didn't allow Barbarians to have a
d12 Hit Die. It didn't allow them to 'rage', it didn't allow them Uncanny
Dodge. It didn't allow them Damage Reduction. It didn't allow them Faster
movement. Sure, in 2e, they *were* just another fighter. And that was the
problem. Why play them at all, if they are *just fighters with a different
history*?
>
> The biggest joke is "wizards" and "sorcerors". Jeez, if you're going to
> be THAT frivolous with classes, how about making Necromancers a
> seperate class. That's a class in Diablo II, too.
Sorcerors are significantly different from Wizards. Wizards use spellbooks
and prepare spells. Sorcerors do neither. Why *should* they be the same?
>
> Already I can see a 4th edition coming out in a year or so to do the
> same thing that 2nd edition did with the 1st. Then again, we're talking
> about a company that issues new rules every six months for a
> collectible card game.
Oh please. You are starting to sound like just another 'WotC hater' to me.
D&D *needed* and upgrade. It took what, 10+years to screw things up enough
to need one? Unless you liked having all your rules spread across about
$200 worth of supplements.
>
> * * *
>
> The other problem I have is the freely changing multiclass rules. Face
> it -- most people, even the best and cream of the crop, cannot pick up
> skills willy-nilly. They are mostly INBORN traits. I can learn public
> speaking, but that won't make me a good orator, no matter HOW MUCH I
> study it. I can paint, but no matter how much I practice, I'll never be
> Leonardo da Vinci. Face it -- people are born to do certain skills.
And these people in 3e take Skill focus. Ta-Da!
> Similiarly, you can't have
> fighter/cleric/thief/barbarian/wizard/sorceror. Yes, that's
> overstating, but you can see the problem -- as a DM, I'll likely have
> some nerd approaching me with some character like that, and *I* will be
> the jerk for disallowing that character.
Well, if you let your players start off at level 6, and the character
actually *has* a good background for such a diverse character, let them.
Let's see, they'll get a +2 base attack bonus, while everyone elses will be
around +4-+6. Their Saving throws will be around +6/+2/+6, comparable to
everyone else in the level 6 range. They will be limited to level 1 spells.
Everyone else will be tossing 3rd level spells around(You've got a magic
missle? I've got a Fireball, eat that, sucker). Depending on which class
they took first, their skills won't be any higher than a character of
comparable level. They'll have 4 feats(5 if human), not as many as a 6th
level Fighter, more than a 6th level anything else. Sounds reasonably
balanced for me. If they can come up with a concept that allows all those
varied classes, I'd let them do it, as a DM.
>
> That's all I can think of -- I haven't gotten beyond the classes yet.
> By the way, what happened to female dwarves beards? It may seem
> unattractive to players playing the game, but dwarven males find it
> attractive. Somehow the halflings don't seem like Tolkienian halflings -
> - what happened to their heads? Did God smash a mallet on their heads
> so they could stack easily?
Halflings are *not* hobbits. Period. Haven't been for some time.
Hari the Monk
Lizard
> The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
> Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
> Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
>
Well, given the new style of classes, would it have been so hard to
strip everything down to:
Warrior
Arcane Caster
Divine Caster
Rogue
And then do everything else with multiclassing and feats, with the truly
non-generic (or too-specific) abilities shunted to Prestige Classes?
(Which I consider to be an EXCELLENT addition to the class mechanic, and
I keep inventing more...)
So, to build a 'barbarian warrior', begin with 'Warrior', and take
'Rage' and 'Uncannoy Dodge' feats, trading back the Heavy armor
proficiency. Ranger? A Rogue/Warrior with an emphasis on wilderness
skills and the 'Favored Enemy' feat, which would be possible for ANYONE
to take. Why not a Wizard who has sworn to kill all Evil Outsiders?
A 'generic' paladin is a Warrior/divine Caster, with specific orders of
the paladinity built as prestige classes. Either Arcane or Divine
casters can choose to be 'studious' or 'innate' casters, learning spells
as wizards/clerics or sorcerors, respectively. (Why not 'divine
sorcerors'? Some choose to devote themselves to a deity, study its holy
writings, etc -- others are simply 'chosen' and find they can bring
forth divine power seemingly at whim. 'Prophet', 'Saint', or 'Avatar'
sounds like a good class name.)
Blackberry
2000 09:57:16 -0700 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>[...]
>So, to build a 'barbarian warrior', begin with 'Warrior', and take
>'Rage' and 'Uncannoy Dodge' feats, trading back the Heavy armor
>proficiency. Ranger? A Rogue/Warrior with an emphasis on wilderness
>skills and the 'Favored Enemy' feat, which would be possible for ANYONE
>to take. Why not a Wizard who has sworn to kill all Evil Outsiders?
When I first looked at 3rd edition, I saw this immediately as the way I would
have gone. Once I've played it a bit, I probably will develop it into a
kit-based character system like the one you've described.
Dr Nuncheon
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>
>> The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
>> Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
>> Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
>>
>Well, given the new style of classes, would it have been so hard to
>strip everything down to:
>Warrior
>Arcane Caster
>Divine Caster
>Rogue
How far do you take it, though? Why not remove classes entirely, a la
GURPS or HERO, and just make everything skills & feats? If you go too far
it really stops being D&D (and I think judging from a lot of people's
reactions that WOTC went to the knife-edge on how far they could change
things and still make a game that's D&D).
GURPS and HERO are both great systems, but I really wouldn't want to see
all systems turned into them. Classes are part of D&D, just like hit
points and levels. I think WOTC did a good job in throwing out the crap
from older editions but still keeping the core of the game intact.
Lizard
>
> I know that a lot of this stuff has been rehashed, probably, to great
> extent, but since I'm an experienced
Not very, to judge from your comments.
AD&D DM, and just bought the
> books, I will issue my own problems with the game.
>
> Glaring issue #1: The character classes, or "Diablo II / AD&D".
>
> Is it a coincidence that the Diablo II edition of the AD&D game was
> released a few months before? How come they resemble those
> Diablo/Diablo II classes?
>
Because Diablo is mostly a D&D ripoff? You have cause and effect
reversed.
> In the 2nd edition, you have four classes: Mage, Thief, Cleric and
> Fighter.
Paladin, Ranger, Bard...
> Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It was
> a response to the 1st edition's confusing melange of classes. (In
> addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
>
Obviously, you never tried using the 'class creation' rules, which were
so hideously broken they couldn't even be used to recreate the standard
classes.
> 3rd edition stumbles into 1st editions problem.
>
> Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
> II inspired).
While I know Diablo II was a bit delayed, I don't think it's been in
production since 1983? 1984? when Unearthed Arcana was published -- or
even earlier when the Dragon article on the 'Barbarian' class was first
printed.
> Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
> sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
>
The term 'subclass' is meaningless, except for arbitrary organizational
schemes. If you call a barbarian a 'subclass' of fighter, so what? It's
still a unique class. D&D isn't object oriented -- there's no
inheritance mechanism.
> The biggest joke is "wizards" and "sorcerors". Jeez, if you're going to
> be THAT frivolous with classes, how about making Necromancers a
> seperate class. That's a class in Diablo II, too.
Given that the wizards and sorcerors have totally different styles of
magic, keeping them separate makes sense. If anything, they erred in not
having a Divine Magic equivalent of the Sorceror.
> The other problem I have is the freely changing multiclass rules. Face
> it -- most people, even the best and cream of the crop, cannot pick up
> skills willy-nilly. They are mostly INBORN traits. I can learn public
> speaking, but that won't make me a good orator, no matter HOW MUCH I
> study it. I can paint, but no matter how much I practice, I'll never be
> Leonardo da Vinci. Face it -- people are born to do certain skills.
And if these skills include both spellcasting AND thieving? Fighting AND
praying?
You undermine your own arguments.
Either you have a thousand character classes, representing every
conceivable spread of emphasis among the major categories of ability, or
you have a small number of classes with easy multiclassing, so you can
build someone who is 'mostly fighter with a little thief and a bit of
wizard'. I propose such a system elsewhere in this thread.
> Similiarly, you can't have
> fighter/cleric/thief/barbarian/wizard/sorceror. Yes, that's
> overstating, but you can see the problem -- as a DM, I'll likely have
> some nerd approaching me with some character like that, and *I* will be
> the jerk for disallowing that character.
>
If you have players who are that immature, get better players.
Beau Yarbrough
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
> > In the 2nd edition, you have four classes: Mage, Thief, Cleric and
> > Fighter.
>
> Paladin, Ranger, Bard...
Druid.
> > Similiarly, you can't have
> > fighter/cleric/thief/barbarian/wizard/sorceror. Yes, that's
> > overstating, but you can see the problem -- as a DM, I'll likely
have
> > some nerd approaching me with some character like that, and *I*
will be
> > the jerk for disallowing that character.
> If you have players who are that immature, get better players.
Screw that. Let him do it as an object lesson. He'll be taking a
massive hit on experience points, and be a sixth level character with
the spell casting ability of a first level cleric, first level wizard
and first level sorcerer for a long, long, long time because of it.
If there are idiots who'd try this, they'll only do it once.
Bryan J. Maloney
incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
> >Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
> >II inspired). Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
> >sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
>
> I can see your point. th Barbarian seems really to stick out. If we
Actually, the Monk sticks out far worse than does the Barbarian. It's
much easier to stick a bunch of screaming-mad Skandawhovian whatevers on
the cold side of a vanilla pseudo-euro fantasy setting than figure out
just HOW a bunch of Buddhists made it over.
> I'm not saying the current class abilities are bad..just a tad
> cookie-cutter style. But then they probably plan on selling an
> expansion to fix that :)
There is a certain modularity implicit in the system, moreso than in
earlier iterations. At least it looks to be easier to tease out. Ryan
Dancey has already made noises to the effect of looking into a "roll your
own" book for D&D.
> >Sorry, but barbarians are just fighters with a different history and
> >some minor class modifications.
>
> I have to agree--having different skills o whatever doesnt really
> change what they are--fighters. They just grew up wild and learned
> different skills. they aren't as distinct as the current Ranger and
> Paladin are.
Paladins are just fighter/clerics with a different history and some minor
class modifications.
Rangers are just fighter/druids with a different history and some minor
class modifications.
--
Bryan J. Maloney
incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
> >The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
> >Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
> >Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
>
> just a few abilities doesn't make a distinct class. they still are
> simply a fighter from the wild places. It doesn't ruin the game, but
> just points out how they should have had a tad more flexibility in
> base class abilities to me.
Yeah, like those Rangers and Paladins can be thrown out, too. Just a few
abilities doesn't make a distinct class.
--
Meech
[snip]
> > Honestly, the Barbarian class is totally unnecessary (and seems Diablo
> > II inspired).
>
> While I know Diablo II was a bit delayed, I don't think it's been in
> production since 1983? 1984? when Unearthed Arcana was published -- or
> even earlier when the Dragon article on the 'Barbarian' class was first
> printed.
>
> > Same for Druids, Bards, Monks and Sorcerors. ESPECIALLY
> > sorcerors. These are SUBCLASSES, Wizards of the Coast.
> >
> The term 'subclass' is meaningless, except for arbitrary organizational
> schemes. If you call a barbarian a 'subclass' of fighter, so what? It's
> still a unique class. D&D isn't object oriented -- there's no
> inheritance mechanism.
*snicker*
*chuckle*
*guffaw*
> > The biggest joke is "wizards" and "sorcerors". Jeez, if you're going to
> > be THAT frivolous with classes, how about making Necromancers a
> > seperate class. That's a class in Diablo II, too.
>
> Given that the wizards and sorcerors have totally different styles of
> magic, keeping them separate makes sense. If anything, they erred in not
> having a Divine Magic equivalent of the Sorceror.
Speak of the devil! We created one of these for our campaign. I've got a
3rd level one of these (still haven't come up with a name for it; I
wanted Mystic, but that's taken).
Meech the Brown Hornet
john v verkuilen
>Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>> The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
>> Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
>> Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
>>
>Well, given the new style of classes, would it have been so hard to
>strip everything down to:
>Warrior
>Arcane Caster
>Divine Caster
>Rogue
>And then do everything else with multiclassing and feats, with the truly
>non-generic (or too-specific) abilities shunted to Prestige Classes?
>(Which I consider to be an EXCELLENT addition to the class mechanic, and
>I keep inventing more...)
[snip]
In our (basically) 2E house rules, this is *exactly* what was done, especially
since multiclassing was open to humans. Non-generic characters were handled
as special cases, e.g., our version of the Bard's Tale bard. Otherwise, you
want to be a wilderness warrior, take fighter/thief and choose skills and
proficiencies appropriately. A little flexibility from the GM allowed
substitution of abilities where it made sense, e.g., said wilderness warrior
not knowing Thieves' Cant but instead having an extra proficiency slot for,
say, Tracking.
It is a rather elegant approach, if I do say so myself.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is
ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of
his senses only to justify his logic." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
john v verkuilen
>> Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It was
>> a response to the 1st edition's confusing melange of classes. (In
>> addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
>>
>Obviously, you never tried using the 'class creation' rules, which were
>so hideously broken they couldn't even be used to recreate the standard
>classes.
By design, stupidly enough. There is a little bit of self-congratulatory
prose to that effect.
Dr Nuncheon
john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> writes:
>
>>> Simple. Easy. From there, you could use Character Kits. It was
>>> a response to the 1st edition's confusing melange of classes. (In
>>> addition, you could CREATE your own classes with 2nd edition.)
>>>
>>Obviously, you never tried using the 'class creation' rules, which were
>>so hideously broken they couldn't even be used to recreate the standard
>>classes.
>
>By design, stupidly enough.
I doubt that. I think they just couldn't come up with a balanced system
that allowed them to create the existing classes. (They couldn't do it
with Basic D&D either...)
>There is a little bit of self-congratulatory
>prose to that effect.
The CYA principle at work. "It's not a bug, it's a *feature*!"
John Rudd
> >
> >> The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
> >> Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
> >> Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
> >>
> >Well, given the new style of classes, would it have been so hard to
> >strip everything down to:
> >Warrior
> >Arcane Caster
> >Divine Caster
> >Rogue
>
> GURPS or HERO, and just make everything skills & feats? If you go too far
> it really stops being D&D (and I think judging from a lot of people's
> reactions that WOTC went to the knife-edge on how far they could change
> things and still make a game that's D&D).
>
> GURPS and HERO are both great systems, but I really wouldn't want to see
> all systems turned into them. Classes are part of D&D, just like hit
> points and levels. I think WOTC did a good job in throwing out the crap
> from older editions but still keeping the core of the game intact.
>
Right, but how many classes are necessary to preserve archetypes without
having a class for each and every unique person (read: each and every
person)?
I don't see the need for Fighter AND Barbarian AND Ranger AND Paladin.
With multi-classing, a tracking skill, and a racism feat, what do you
need with a Ranger class? In terms of character concept, why do
Paladins exist at all, when anyone can be a multi-class Fighter/Cleric?
If you have a Rage feat and maybe a few Disadvantages/Anti-Feats related
to their armor and stuff, what, besides the bonus hitpoints (which
aren't necessary to the concept) do you need to build a Barbarian other
than Fighter/Theif (assuming you really want the uncanny dodge,
otherwise just a Fighter)?
Similarly, Sorcerer could be just a specialization of Wizard (choose
whether you're a latent or learned spell caster, and that sets up things
like how many spells you know at any given level, and all of the other
differences between a Sorcerer and a Wizard).
Multi-classing and Feats go a long way to allowing you to do away with
some classes that are just sub-types of base archetypes or mixes of
archetypes. I think that the base archetypes are important to D&D, but
I don't think making classes out of the mixes and sub-types is
necessary, nor even desireable.
--
John "kzin" Rudd http://www.domain.org/users/kzin
Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last. (Physics of Quarks)
-----===== Kein Mitleid Fu:r MicroSoft (www.kmfms.com) ======-----
Dr Nuncheon
John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>> How far do you take it, though? Why not remove classes entirely, a la
>> GURPS or HERO, and just make everything skills & feats? If you go too far
>> it really stops being D&D (and I think judging from a lot of people's
>> reactions that WOTC went to the knife-edge on how far they could change
>> things and still make a game that's D&D).
>>
>> GURPS and HERO are both great systems, but I really wouldn't want to see
>> all systems turned into them. Classes are part of D&D, just like hit
>> points and levels. I think WOTC did a good job in throwing out the crap
>> from older editions but still keeping the core of the game intact.
>
>Right, but how many classes are necessary to preserve archetypes without
>having a class for each and every unique person (read: each and every
>person)?
That depends on the individual campaign, I suspect.
>I don't see the need for Fighter AND Barbarian AND Ranger AND Paladin.
>With multi-classing, a tracking skill, and a racism feat, what do you
>need with a Ranger class? In terms of character concept, why do
>Paladins exist at all, when anyone can be a multi-class Fighter/Cleric?
Well, once of the nice things about both Rangers and Paladins is that they
get the same speed of combat advancement as the Fighter. (They trade off
some spellcasting ability for this, though.)
They also serve as excellent examples for building your own classes - if
for example you had a fighter-type class with special abilities that you
didn't want just anyone to be able to take (but you wanted to make it
available at 1st level instead of as a prestige class).
>If you have a Rage feat and maybe a few Disadvantages/Anti-Feats related
>to their armor and stuff, what, besides the bonus hitpoints (which
>aren't necessary to the concept) do you need to build a Barbarian other
>than Fighter/Theif (assuming you really want the uncanny dodge,
>otherwise just a Fighter)?
I think it'd be difficult to make certain class special abilities balance
well - or logically! - as feats. Let's take Rage. If it's just an
ordinary feat, then what's to stop a fighter from taking the next 'level'
every 2 class levels? Sure, you could limit it by attack bonus, but
where's the logic in that? "No, you have to be more skilled with your
weapon before you can go berserk more than once a day..."
Everybody and their brother would be taking the Paladin's "laying on
hands" as a Feat. When everyone can heal with a touch, the 'specialness'
of the special ability is gone. "Oh, yeah, my Rogue can do that too."
>Similarly, Sorcerer could be just a specialization of Wizard (choose
>whether you're a latent or learned spell caster, and that sets up things
>like how many spells you know at any given level, and all of the other
>differences between a Sorcerer and a Wizard).
When the differences are that great, why *not* separate it into two
classes? Let's see...different method of spellcasting, different class
skills, different spell progression, different special abilities -
practically the only thing common to the two classes are the d4 hit
dice and the spell lists...
Peter Seebach
John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>I don't see the need for Fighter AND Barbarian AND Ranger AND Paladin.
>With multi-classing, a tracking skill, and a racism feat, what do you
>need with a Ranger class? In terms of character concept, why do
>Paladins exist at all, when anyone can be a multi-class Fighter/Cleric?
Paladins are somewhat different. Things like the immunity to disease,
divine grace, and so on; clerics *don't get those*.
I'm not sure what the "correct" fix is, but "fighter/cleric" isn't the
same as "paladin".
>If you have a Rage feat and maybe a few Disadvantages/Anti-Feats related
>to their armor and stuff, what, besides the bonus hitpoints (which
>aren't necessary to the concept) do you need to build a Barbarian other
>than Fighter/Theif (assuming you really want the uncanny dodge,
>otherwise just a Fighter)?
Ahh, but that comes bundled with pathetic hit points and evasion.
>Similarly, Sorcerer could be just a specialization of Wizard (choose
>whether you're a latent or learned spell caster, and that sets up things
>like how many spells you know at any given level, and all of the other
>differences between a Sorcerer and a Wizard).
Sure, and if you use "choose whether you're arcane or divine", you could
probably combine wizard and cleric, too.
>Multi-classing and Feats go a long way to allowing you to do away with
>some classes that are just sub-types of base archetypes or mixes of
>archetypes. I think that the base archetypes are important to D&D, but
>I don't think making classes out of the mixes and sub-types is
>necessary, nor even desireable.
I think it depends. I like 3E's selection better than 2E's. No more attempts
to portray the druid as "just another cleric".
Marizhavashti Kali
Lizard wrote:
>
> Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>
> > The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
> > Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
> > Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
> >
> Well, given the new style of classes, would it have been so hard to
> strip everything down to:
Probably not so hard, but definitely less fun.
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"Atlantic City is Oz envisioned by used car salesmen and pimps."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | --Rick Glumsky, Celtic Filth
Lizard
>
> Lizard wrote:
> >
> > Dr Nuncheon wrote:
> >
> > > The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
> > > Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
> > > Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
> > >
> > Well, given the new style of classes, would it have been so hard to
> > strip everything down to:
>
> Probably not so hard, but definitely less fun.
>
heresy, my opinion is that, if I *am* going to be using a class system,
then, pile on the classes! I want fifth-level farmers cavorting with
fourth-level barmaids! I want to convert all the old Arduin classes to
3e! (Except the people who own the Arduin rights are already going to
release under the D20 STL, so I'll just wait!) I like to use exclamation
points!
(There's no AC at work today. I'm in Sf in a heat wave. I'm being
silly.)
Jeremy Reaban
Lizard wrote in message <39C7D00D...@mrlizard.com>...
<snip>
>I concur, despite my suggestions on how to do it. While it's blatant
>heresy, my opinion is that, if I *am* going to be using a class
system,
>then, pile on the classes! I want fifth-level farmers cavorting with
>fourth-level barmaids!
Suikoden, an rpg for the Playstation, does just that. You can have
108 characters in each, and many of them have extremely odd classes.
Fishermen, Launderess, Innkeeper. There was a barmaid in the first,
but I think her class was 'Dancer'
Beau Yarbrough
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
> I concur, despite my suggestions on how to do it. While it's blatant
> heresy, my opinion is that, if I *am* going to be using a class
system,
> then, pile on the classes! I want fifth-level farmers cavorting with
> fourth-level barmaids! I want to convert all the old Arduin classes to
> 3e! (Except the people who own the Arduin rights are already going to
> release under the D20 STL, so I'll just wait!) I like to use
exclamation
> points!
Having heard so much about Arduin over the years, I have to say, my
curiosity is finally getting the better of me: Is there a link to a
site the provides a good overview of the setting?
Marizhavashti Kali
Lizard wrote:
>
> > Probably not so hard, but definitely less fun.
> >
> I concur, despite my suggestions on how to do it. While it's blatant
> heresy, my opinion is that, if I *am* going to be using a class system,
> then, pile on the classes!
Much agreed.
> I want fifth-level farmers cavorting with
> fourth-level barmaids! I want to convert all the old Arduin classes to
> 3e! (Except the people who own the Arduin rights are already going to
> release under the D20 STL, so I'll just wait!) I like to use exclamation
> points!
Heh. I'm looking forward to D20 Arduin as well. Arduin brings back
memories... :-)
> (There's no AC at work today. I'm in Sf in a heat wave. I'm being
> silly.)
This is different from your usual behavior in what way?
Bruce Baugh
>I concur, despite my suggestions on how to do it. While it's blatant
>heresy, my opinion is that, if I *am* going to be using a class system,
>then, pile on the classes!
I feel much the same way. If I want to play some other game, I'll go
play it. I'm looking at D&D for the fun of what D&D does.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> bruce...@spiretech.com
Information wants to be free. Entertainment wants to be valuable.
Stephenls
> It's not even like it's a major game balance issue, but the way people
> are talking about it you'd think that WOTC was hiring the White Wolf
> Canon Enforcing Ninja Death Squads to put contracts out on the people
> with bearded dwarves and chubby halflings.
Stop right there. I have it on good authority that the Whitewolf Canon
Encorcing Ninja Death Squads have NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST. No
witnesses have come forward, and Justin Achilli has repeatedly denied
their that he will send them to your house. The Stick-Weilding
StoryFacists have been retired, as well.
Ask Deird're. She'll back me up.
If she knows what's good -- am I still typing?
--
Stephenls
Geek
"Life without pain isn't real" -Isamu Dyson, Macross Plus
John Rudd
>
> In article <39C7B9FF...@cats.ucsc.edu>,
> John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
> >I don't see the need for Fighter AND Barbarian AND Ranger AND Paladin.
> >With multi-classing, a tracking skill, and a racism feat, what do you
> >need with a Ranger class? In terms of character concept, why do
> >Paladins exist at all, when anyone can be a multi-class Fighter/Cleric?
>
> Paladins are somewhat different. Things like the immunity to disease,
> divine grace, and so on; clerics *don't get those*.
>
> I'm not sure what the "correct" fix is, but "fighter/cleric" isn't the
> same as "paladin".
Mechanically, fighter/cleric is not the same as paladin. But I don't
care about that. Conceptually, the paladin conception can be handled as
a fighter/cleric. No, you don't get immunity to disease, divine grace,
etc.
So?
> >If you have a Rage feat and maybe a few Disadvantages/Anti-Feats related
> >to their armor and stuff, what, besides the bonus hitpoints (which
> >aren't necessary to the concept) do you need to build a Barbarian other
> >than Fighter/Theif (assuming you really want the uncanny dodge,
> >otherwise just a Fighter)?
>
> Ahh, but that comes bundled with pathetic hit points and evasion.
The price of flexability.
> >Similarly, Sorcerer could be just a specialization of Wizard (choose
> >whether you're a latent or learned spell caster, and that sets up things
> >like how many spells you know at any given level, and all of the other
> >differences between a Sorcerer and a Wizard).
>
> Sure, and if you use "choose whether you're arcane or divine", you could
> probably combine wizard and cleric, too.
I thought about that ... but figured that was too much to suggest in one
post.
> >Multi-classing and Feats go a long way to allowing you to do away with
> >some classes that are just sub-types of base archetypes or mixes of
> >archetypes. I think that the base archetypes are important to D&D, but
> >I don't think making classes out of the mixes and sub-types is
> >necessary, nor even desireable.
>
> I think it depends. I like 3E's selection better than 2E's. No more attempts
> to portray the druid as "just another cleric".
I doubt we're going to reach agreement then. I think the Druid should
be "just another cleric", just as I think the barbarian and ranger
should each be "just another fighter".
Michael Scott Brown
Hint: Backwards compatibility.
Thankyou.
-Michael
John Rudd
>
> In article <39C7F1EE...@cats.ucsc.edu>,
> John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
> >Mechanically, fighter/cleric is not the same as paladin. But I don't
> >care about that. Conceptually, the paladin conception can be handled as
> >a fighter/cleric. No, you don't get immunity to disease, divine grace,
> >etc.
>
> >So?
>
> as a priest. Not the same archetype.
Sure it is. The blessing is the spells (some of which can be used to
duplicate the powers of the cleric).
The archetype is a holy warrior who has powers granted by their diety. A
fighter/cleric fits that just as well as a fighter with special powers.
Nothing about the archetype requires "+2 on saving throws", "laying of
hands", "protection from evil" as a power instead of a spell, etc. Fighter
covers "warrior" and cleric covers "holy (guy), who has powers granted by
their diety".
A fighter/cleric will definitely be played differently than the existing
paladin class, but that doesn't mean they don't both impliment the same
archetype.
> I don't think the Druid should be "just another cleric" because there's no
> pantheon or god to point at.
I honestly don't think that matters. A Druid is a priest of nature. The
fact that their supernatural powers come from a de-personified spiritual
energy instead of a personified spiritual energy doesn't really matter.
That's forrest shaped green icing on the cleric flavored cake.
> Basically, the point of a class system is to allow you to represent people
> who have substantially different approaches to adventuring as different
> *types* of people. I think the class system is better served by a variety
> of classes, rather than by a few classes and lots of "feats" or whatever.
> If I wanted the system to be driven totally by "feats", I'd call them
> "Advantages" and play GURPS.
>
I agree at a basic level about the nature of a class system, but I don't
think you need many classes, each being very narrow. I think each
archetype can be broad and then left to the individual to narrow via
choices. And instead of providing classes which mix features of other
archetypes, when a character has a concept that is a mix of archetypes,
they can use the new multi-class rules to accomplish that goal (which is
where I put the Paladin).
John Rudd
>
> Hint: Backwards compatibility.
>
Yeah, the same logic that has us stuck with the standard user OS being
based on a shoddy GUI engine on top of a CPM based OS, running on clunky
CPUs whose basic architecture was designed 30 years ago. Backward
Compatability is an excuse created by people who are too lazy to shed dead
weight.
If you can impliment nearly the same character using a few broad classes
with lots of feats, how is backward compatability not given a reasonable
nod? And how does it compare to the loss of backward compatability between
2e and 3e, where they're dumping all sorts of things like the players
options and custom built class rules? Or the change between 1e and 2e
where several classes were outright dropped?
John Rudd
>
> In article <39C7D00D...@mrlizard.com>, Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>
> >I concur, despite my suggestions on how to do it. While it's blatant
> >heresy, my opinion is that, if I *am* going to be using a class system,
> >then, pile on the classes!
>
> I feel much the same way. If I want to play some other game, I'll go
> play it. I'm looking at D&D for the fun of what D&D does.
>
And how does 4 basic broad archetype classes, with some customization
tools, (such as the ones that they started with in 2D&D, and then provided
kits to customize them with) not do "what D&D does"?
Peter Seebach
John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>Mechanically, fighter/cleric is not the same as paladin. But I don't
>care about that. Conceptually, the paladin conception can be handled as
>a fighter/cleric. No, you don't get immunity to disease, divine grace,
>etc.
>So?
So, it's no longer a blessed warrior, but a warrior who spends some time
as a priest. Not the same archetype.
>I thought about that ... but figured that was too much to suggest in one
>post.
;-)
>I doubt we're going to reach agreement then. I think the Druid should
>be "just another cleric", just as I think the barbarian and ranger
>should each be "just another fighter".
I don't think the Druid should be "just another cleric" because there's no
pantheon or god to point at.
Basically, the point of a class system is to allow you to represent people
who have substantially different approaches to adventuring as different
*types* of people. I think the class system is better served by a variety
of classes, rather than by a few classes and lots of "feats" or whatever.
If I wanted the system to be driven totally by "feats", I'd call them
"Advantages" and play GURPS.
-s
epic_sou...@my-deja.com
> Basically, the point of a class system is to allow you to represent
>people who have substantially different approaches to adventuring as
>different *types* of people. I think the class system is better
>served by a variety of classes, rather than by a few classes and lots
>of "feats" or whatever.
> If I wanted the system to be driven totally by "feats", I'd call them
> "Advantages" and play GURPS.
>
primary classes? Yes, for the most part you can reproduce these
classes with a combination of the right feats and some multiclassing.
Why? What do you gain, from a game perspective, from doing so? I'm
not fundamentally opposed to the idea, I just don't see the value added
in it.
Epic
incrdbil
>
>Yeah, like those Rangers and Paladins can be thrown out, too. Just a few
>abilities doesn't make a distinct class.
the ranger and paladin have quite a major difference in spellcasting
ability.
the Barbarian is just a fighter with less manners :)
>
incrdbil
>So, to build a 'barbarian warrior', begin with 'Warrior', and take
>'Rage' and 'Uncannoy Dodge' feats, trading back the Heavy armor
>proficiency. Ranger? A Rogue/Warrior with an emphasis on wilderness
>skills and the 'Favored Enemy' feat, which would be possible for ANYONE
>to take. Why not a Wizard who has sworn to kill all Evil Outsiders?
>
a wonderful idea, and not that hard to implement. Will probably be a
popular home grown rule that will make it into print sometime in some
expansion. It beats cookie cutter classes.
Colin Neilson
>3rd level one of these (still haven't come up with a name for it; I
>wanted Mystic, but that's taken).
How about Channeler? Implys that the character channels a diety's (or
philosopy's or force's) power without learning a bunch of prayers and
rituals required for a Cleric (member of the clergy).
incrdbil
>
>Everybody and their brother would be taking the Paladin's "laying on
>hands" as a Feat. When everyone can heal with a touch, the 'specialness'
>of the special ability is gone. "Oh, yeah, my Rogue can do that too."
>
thats why I would limit those abilities to specific ranger/paladin
class packages (possibly allowing some variety within those class
packages) while folding the barbarian back into the classs where he
belongs.
It's not a broken system, but a ad generic and simplistic in how it
deals witht he plethora of potential fighter role-models
incrdbil
>Paladin was a separate class. Different XP table. Kits were an abomination;
>randomly unbalanced game rules introduced specially for each kit, with no
>real continuity.
Kits were what saved the individual classes from monotony. A few were
borken, but then all were subject to DM's whim...
>
>
>Yes, it was a "reaction" to 1E. It was a cure worse than the disease.
2e was a huge step up from 1e..where haracters did little except what
their class told them to do.
e it as a problem, and I don't see it as "stumbling". It turns
>out that kits suck, and a broader selection of balanced classes is what's
>called for.
nope--you simply can't do enough classes to cover the variety that
kits coudl do so well.
We dont need an archer class, a pugilist class, a gladiator class, a
Sage class, a plumber class,.....
>
>
>No, they are not. Subclasses were a design mistake. Classes seem to work
>better.
nope--you really have missed the mark. Categories with
specializations within are easier to manage and design around than
either : limiting people with cookie cutter classes or having a
million different classes running about.
>
>Barbarians are a useful, interesting, class. They are not, IMHO, just
>"a fighter with feats".
But they are. Unlike a Ranger or Paladin, who have gotten in touch
with powers/calling outside of what you can normally train for, the
Barbarian is simply a fighter with an altered skill selection, and
really not worth a seperate class.
. Sorcerers
>are not at all a subclass; they are a totally different way of getting spells
>than wizards.
they are an alternate spell selection system to please palyers, with a
few artificial fluff bits thrown in trying to justify them as a class.
they are mages for those who don't like having pre-memorized spells.
>
>Finally, monks, most of all, are not a subclass of anything.
Close enough to fold into clerics possibly. they really don't fit
well into standard D7D settings I think. I just don't think martial
arts belong in the standard fantasy campaign (based on western mythos,
not those of the far east) as an option for players, but best saved
for a rare or unique NPC/Villian. But hey, some folks like that
thing.
I myself loved Oriental Adventures..a settign where monks truly
belonged as combat characters.
>Because CHARACTER KITS SUCK.
>
>D&D was designed, originally, for classes. They work well.
no, they don't--if you don't leave more room to customize the classes,
they lead to annoying limitations. i think supplements will cure
this..after all the PHB is just the base starting point.
>And spell spheres, as implemented in 2E, were an abysmal, stupid, failure.
now thats the wackiest thing I've heard yet. They worked wonderfully
better than anything in 1E.
>
>I did. It sucked. It was an abysmal, abusive, stinking mass of imbalanced
>rules and game-breakers.
in your heavily biased opinion.
>
>
>No, really, we aren't. These rules, unlike 2E, are viable. 2E was a dramatic
>disimprovement over 1E, precisely because it tried to make all the rules
>special and unique, with no continuity. Every kit had a unique rule that *did
>not exist anywhere else*. No way to compare it with anything. No rules for
>interactions.
okay--if you think 2e was worse than 1e--your beyond rational thought.
goodbye.
Aaron F. Bourque
>>Well, given the new style of classes, would it have been so hard to
>>strip everything down to:
>>Warrior
>>Arcane Caster
>>Divine Caster
>>Rogue
>
>How far do you take it, though? Why not remove classes entirely, a la
>GURPS or HERO, and just make everything skills & feats?
Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
Being grown up all the time is only a sign of immaturity.
Come on, people! Grow up! Act stupid!
Scott Taylor
> Dr Nuncheon (je...@fnord.io.com) howled at the moon:
>
> >>Well, given the new style of classes, would it have been so hard to
> >>strip everything down to:
> >>Warrior
> >>Arcane Caster
> >>Divine Caster
> >>Rogue
> >
> >How far do you take it, though? Why not remove classes entirely, a la
> >GURPS or HERO, and just make everything skills & feats?
>
> Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
No, there isn't, but if you're going to do that, why not just play
GURPS, or HERO, or CORPS, or one of the other completely point-based
RPGs?
Or would that be too simple?
--
Scott Taylor
Freelancer for Hire
Have Powerbook, Will Travel
Bruce Baugh
>And how does 4 basic broad archetype classes, with some customization
>tools, (such as the ones that they started with in 2D&D, and then provided
>kits to customize them with) not do "what D&D does"?
It moves it in the direction of GURPS and the Hero System, which already
exist, and gives up stuff that many of us find fun in D&D3.
Bluefire
abducted by green apes who left the following ransom note:
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, it's no longer a blessed warrior, but a warrior who spends some time
>> as a priest. Not the same archetype.
>
>Sure it is. The blessing is the spells (some of which can be used to
>duplicate the powers of the cleric).
>
>The archetype is a holy warrior who has powers granted by their diety. A
>fighter/cleric fits that just as well as a fighter with special powers.
>Nothing about the archetype requires "+2 on saving throws", "laying of
>hands", "protection from evil" as a power instead of a spell, etc. Fighter
>covers "warrior" and cleric covers "holy (guy), who has powers granted by
>their diety".
>
>A fighter/cleric will definitely be played differently than the existing
>paladin class, but that doesn't mean they don't both impliment the same
>archetype.
Besides AFAIK the Paladin archetype isnt a warrior/holy guy but rather
a noble warrior (Knight of the round tablee etc) who's strength of
faith in a purpose (justice, etc) sets him apart.
The fighter class in 3ed isnt as generic as 2ed the feats system adds
a whole new dimension to the class. So even more so in 3ed over 2ed a
paladin isnt a fighter/cleric, a ranger isnt a fighter/druid(more
druidlike than cleric like imho)/thief a bard isnt a
fighter/mage/thief but rather they are all now unique classes (and I
like it).
Bluefire
Meech
Geez, now I feel sheepish. Thanks, that'll fit perfectly. I can't
believe I didn't think of that!
Meech the Brown Hornet
grimb...@my-deja.com
> >
> > Given that the wizards and sorcerors have totally different styles of
> > magic, keeping them separate makes sense. If anything, they erred in not
> > having a Divine Magic equivalent of the Sorceror.
>
> Speak of the devil! We created one of these for our campaign. I've got a
> 3rd level one of these (still haven't come up with a name for it; I
> wanted Mystic, but that's taken).
>
> Meech the Brown Hornet
>
Heck I noticed that too, I wouldn't say they erred thwey just didn't
include them in the PHB. I've been playing with Ideas for a Theurgist
(book and candle Divine magic), Shaman (spirits an all that) and Healer.
There is room for a non-adventurer cleric type also, the lack of
inclusion of one in the DMG wasn't a mistake though.
Peter Seebach
>Yeah, the same logic that has us stuck with the standard user OS being
>based on a shoddy GUI engine on top of a CPM based OS, running on clunky
>CPUs whose basic architecture was designed 30 years ago. Backward
>Compatability is an excuse created by people who are too lazy to shed dead
>weight.
Backwards compatability is a good thing. It's not always good enough to
justify a decision, but it *is* good.
Note that age, in and of itself, doesn't make a design bad. While there are
problems with the x86 family, or with Microsoft, there are other things just
as old which are quite nice even by "modern" standards.
Meech
I don't really mind that one wasn't added. It was rather fun coming up
with a divine sorcerer class off the cleric template and sorcerer spell
progression/casting type. It probably not for every one, but I've always
believed the sorcerer's casting system was the most sensible way for
clerics to get their spells. With a few tweaks to the sorcerer's spell
progression and number of spells they obtain per level, she becomes an
interesting, viable character.
Meech the Brown Hornet
incrdbil
>
>It moves it in the direction of GURPS and the Hero System, which already
>exist, and gives up stuff that many of us find fun in D&D3.
>
but it doesn't give up anything--thats the point. and it still
doesn't come close to the point based systems off hero or Gurps.
Hari the Monk
"incrdbil" <incr...@flinthills.com> wrote in message
news:39c827fa...@usenet.flinthills.com...
With Rage, and Uncanny dodge, and Damage Resistance. I must have missed the
section in the PHB where the fighter gets all of those. Please, direct me
to it, if you will.
Hari the Monk
Dr Nuncheon
>>
>> In article <39C7B9FF...@cats.ucsc.edu>,
>> John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>> >I don't see the need for Fighter AND Barbarian AND Ranger AND Paladin.
>> >With multi-classing, a tracking skill, and a racism feat, what do you
>> >need with a Ranger class? In terms of character concept, why do
>> >Paladins exist at all, when anyone can be a multi-class Fighter/Cleric?
>>
>> Paladins are somewhat different. Things like the immunity to disease,
>> divine grace, and so on; clerics *don't get those*.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the "correct" fix is, but "fighter/cleric" isn't the
>> same as "paladin".
>
>care about that. Conceptually, the paladin conception can be handled as
>a fighter/cleric. No, you don't get immunity to disease, divine grace,
>etc.
>
>So?
I think that a fighter who after years of combat hangs up his sword and
enters the priesthood should 'feel' different from a fighter specifically
chosen to be a champion of a deity (or of just plain Goodness). If
they're both Fighter/Clerics then that difference in 'feel' is lost.
I abandoned 1e long ago, and turned to other systems, like GURPS. Then
one day I was working on a fantasy campaign, and I found myself writing up
different character 'types' and organizations and such that they belonged
to. Lots of them got 'special abilities' that weren't available to other
folks (like the Mage Hunters, who could parry missile spells with their
weapons, or the Order of the Seventh Hand with it's unique battlemagic).
After writing up a bunch of these, it dawned on me what I was doing: I
was creating character classes. That bugged me for a while because at the
time I was still very anti-D&D, but I think the game turned out a whole
lot better for the inclusion of those ideas. (Hmm...might have to write up
some of them as prestige classes, in fact.)
Anyway, my point was that I didn't want 'just anybody' to be able to learn
how to do the Order's battlemagic, or to get the anti-magic abilities of
the Mage Hunters. I wanted them to feel different and unique. Paladins,
rangers, and even barbarians fall under the same type of thing for me. I
*don't* think that 'just anyone' should be able to learn to Rage, or to
get damage resistance. I don't think they belong in the Feat table any
more than spellcasting ability does - they're things that I think you
ought to make the commitment of levelling in the class to get. They
differentiate their respective class from any others.
A barbarian should *feel* different from a fighter/rogue. A ranger should
feel different from a fighter/rogue/druid. A paladin should feel
different from a fighter/cleric. They are (obviously) not going to if you
make them merely multiclasses.
J
--
INTERNET SEEMS TO BE FULL OF MILLIONS OF | Jeff Johnston
IDIOTS & LUNATICS ! ! - c2 (ts...@my-deja.com) | jeffj @ io . com
Dr Nuncheon
Aaron F. Bourque <afbo...@aol.compliance> wrote:
>Dr Nuncheon (je...@fnord.io.com) howled at the moon:
>
>>>Well, given the new style of classes, would it have been so hard to
>>>strip everything down to:
>>>Warrior
>>>Arcane Caster
>>>Divine Caster
>>>Rogue
>>
>>How far do you take it, though? Why not remove classes entirely, a la
>>GURPS or HERO, and just make everything skills & feats?
>
>Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
In fact, I mention that later in my post...honestly, when I have a
campaign idea, my first impulse is still to reach for GURPS or HERO. (BESM
is rapidly joining them on that list, though...)
On the other hand, GURPS and HERO already exist. I don't think the
industry needs D&D to be the same as them. I think D&D3 took some of
their good ideas and incorporated them while still staying D&D, which is
one reason I'm so impressed with it.
Dr Nuncheon
Stephenls <step...@dccnet.com> wrote:
>Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>
>> It's not even like it's a major game balance issue, but the way people
>> are talking about it you'd think that WOTC was hiring the White Wolf
>> Canon Enforcing Ninja Death Squads to put contracts out on the people
>> with bearded dwarves and chubby halflings.
>
>Stop right there. I have it on good authority that the Whitewolf Canon
>Encorcing Ninja Death Squads have NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST.
Well, obviously I was speaking metaphorically. Everybody knows that the
WWCENDS don't exist. I was just discussing their lack of existence the
other day with my friend, who was thinking about removing the Daughters of
Cacaphony from his game.
Hmm...he was supposed to call me last night but he never did...no answer
on his phone either. Oh well, he's probably just busy.
>No
>witnesses have come forward, and Justin Achilli has repeatedly denied
>their that he will send them to your house.
Well, if they *did* exist - and I'm not saying that they do, mind you -
then it'd be silly to send them to your house - he'd send them out in
public where you could be made an example of.
Hari the Monk
I'll see if I can't reproduce it in 3e form, keeping the flavor of said kit.
Hari the Monk
incrdbil
at first level? and in the same class ?:)
Kelly Ross Pedersen
grimb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Given that the wizards and sorcerors have totally different styles of
> > > magic, keeping them separate makes sense. If anything, they erred in not
> > > having a Divine Magic equivalent of the Sorceror.
> >
> > Speak of the devil! We created one of these for our campaign. I've got a
> > 3rd level one of these (still haven't come up with a name for it; I
> > wanted Mystic, but that's taken).
> >
> > Meech the Brown Hornet
> >
>
> Heck I noticed that too, I wouldn't say they erred thwey just didn't
> include them in the PHB. I've been playing with Ideas for a Theurgist
> (book and candle Divine magic), Shaman (spirits an all that) and Healer.
I'm currently working on a Shaman class for my game. They cast divine
spells, but they get fewer than the cleric or druid does. In exchange,
they gain the ability to summon and command a wide variety of spirits.
Would you be interested in seing my rules for them? (I don't want to
post them, cause I'm thinking of sending them in to Dragon when I get
them fully developed, and I don't want to screw anything up by posting
them to a public forum first.)
[snip]
--
Isn't preventing STDs by abstinence a lot like
preventing food poisoning by not eating?
Kelly Pedersen
Student, Megalomaniac, Aspiring All Knowing Being.
john v verkuilen
>Geez, now I feel sheepish. Thanks, that'll fit perfectly. I can't
>believe I didn't think of that!
The White Wizard from Lankhmar worked more or less this way. Take a look at
the Lankhmar sourcebook.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is
ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of
his senses only to justify his logic." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
grimb...@my-deja.com
>
> at first level? and in the same class ?:)
>
>
Thats a problem with some kits, they were fine for higher level
characters but they could ruin the game at first level. when I used kits
I only allowed them for single classed characters, which seems to have
been the prefered method in some of the 2ndEdition books some of the time
. (and yes i saw the smiley)
Michael Scott Brown
news:39C84D34...@domain.org...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >
> > Hint: Backwards compatibility.
> >
>
> Yeah, the same logic that has us stuck with the standard user OS being
> based on a shoddy GUI engine on top of a CPM based OS, running on clunky
> CPUs whose basic architecture was designed 30 years ago. Backward
> Compatability is an excuse created by people who are too lazy to shed dead
> weight.
Your position is poorly thought out here. Believe it or not, it's
actually a *lot* to ask every person who might want to use pre-3 material in
a 3rd edition setting to massively re-think how to recreate the equivalents
of their main character classes. Retaining the Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian
class "packages" so as to keep such links to the previous edition doesn't
invalidate your ability to recreate them with other means such as feats and
multiclassing and prestige classes; what it does do is make it infinitely
easier for people who *don't* want to bother with this to do so. This kind
of utility is not a bad thing, in fact it's crucial to the viability of the
new edition.
> And how does it compare to the loss of backward compatability between
> 2e and 3e, where they're dumping all sorts of things like the players
> options and custom built class rules?
Hint: Feats.
-Michael
Meech
> >believe I didn't think of that!
>
> The White Wizard from Lankhmar worked more or less this way. Take a look at
> the Lankhmar sourcebook.
The White Wizard? That makes me think of the original white wizard class
from Final Fantasy I, which, granted, may also fall in line with the
general gist of the class, but still seems a wee bit wonky. I like to
separate my DnD obsession with my video game obsession, no matter what
the Lankhmar sourcebook may say. ^_^
Meech the Brown Hornet
John Rudd
>
> In article <39C7F1EE...@cats.ucsc.edu>,
> John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
> >Mechanically, fighter/cleric is not the same as paladin. But I don't
> >care about that. Conceptually, the paladin conception can be handled as
> >a fighter/cleric. No, you don't get immunity to disease, divine grace,
> >etc.
> >
> >So?
>
> I think that a fighter who after years of combat hangs up his sword and
> enters the priesthood should 'feel' different from a fighter specifically
> chosen to be a champion of a deity (or of just plain Goodness). If
> they're both Fighter/Clerics then that difference in 'feel' is lost.
>
But a Fighter/Cleric isn't necessarily hanging up either his sword or
collar. If he's alternating levels (or keeping a constant pattern to his
levels, like 2 fighter 1 cleric 2 fighter 1 cleric, etc), he's actively
pursuing both at the same time (or, as much as discrete system allows you
to pursue two different vocations continuously).
Dr Nuncheon
>Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>>
>> In article <39C7F1EE...@cats.ucsc.edu>,
>> John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> >Mechanically, fighter/cleric is not the same as paladin. But I don't
>> >care about that. Conceptually, the paladin conception can be handled as
>> >a fighter/cleric. No, you don't get immunity to disease, divine grace,
>> >etc.
>> >
>> >So?
>>
>> I think that a fighter who after years of combat hangs up his sword and
>> enters the priesthood should 'feel' different from a fighter specifically
>> chosen to be a champion of a deity (or of just plain Goodness). If
>> they're both Fighter/Clerics then that difference in 'feel' is lost.
>
>But a Fighter/Cleric isn't necessarily hanging up either his sword or
>collar.
I didn't say he was - I was just providing one example of a Fighter/Cleric
and noting that Fighter/Clerics of any stripe ought to 'feel' different
from Paladins.
Hari the Monk
Expansion 2.0, so that covers all the base 2e classes, the Elves, Dwarves
and gnomes). Like I said, any single classed kit(bladesingers need not
apply).
Hari the Monk
"incrdbil" <incr...@flinthills.com> wrote in message
news:39c8e57b...@usenet.flinthills.com...
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:29:23 -0400, "Hari the Monk"
> <bb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Here's a challenge for you: Give me any single classed Kit from 2e, and
> >I'll see if I can't reproduce it in 3e form, keeping the flavor of said
kit.
> >
> >Hari the Monk
>
Mike Cantrell
>
> In article <39C7F1EE...@cats.ucsc.edu>,
> John Rudd <jr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
> >Mechanically, fighter/cleric is not the same as paladin. But I don't
> >care about that. Conceptually, the paladin conception can be handled as
> >a fighter/cleric. No, you don't get immunity to disease, divine grace,
> >etc.
>
> >So?
>
> as a priest. Not the same archetype.
>
> >post.
>
> ;-)
>
> >I doubt we're going to reach agreement then. I think the Druid should
> >be "just another cleric", just as I think the barbarian and ranger
> >should each be "just another fighter".
>
Well, in my conception (an thus my world), both paladins and rangers
fall into the class of "holy warriors." I also have a whole bevy of
specialized holy warriors to along with my 50 or so specialty priests
that make up the clergy of my pantheon. I've always despised both the
cleric (repeat after me..."the cleric and the paladin are modeled on the
same historical archetype") and druid (badly butchered modern
mythological misconception), though I've actually found a use for the
cleric in my new 3ED&D campaign (and druids are arcane caster in my
world). Thinking on the comments above about fighters, it wouldn't be
too hard to dump the paladin/ranger/barbarian (and I agree, berzerker is
a more precise term) and fold them back into fighter. Take the special
powers and create either an additional group or a a small number of
addition Feat groups and include those powes. For holy warriors, they
choose a deity/domain much like a cleric does and assign a block of
powers to choose from, or assign them in a list like the cleric domains.
Instead of gaining an extra martial Feat the way a fighter does, they
get a bonus holy Feat. After all, they use the same attack bonus
progression and save progression as the fighter. And the d12 irks me.
The whole cavelier-paladin, paladin, barbarian, acrobat, thief-acrobat
really screwed up 1stEd AD&D and made for awful mucnkins (mea culpa, but
hey, I was young!) Anyway, I feel inspired, and if I can manage to
maintian till the weekend, I may try and implement it.
One of the guiding principles of 2ndEd was that there would be 4 basic
classes, and the subclasses would be made by applying layers of
specialization that would distinguish them. I really loved that concept
when I read about it, lo those many years ago, but unfortunately, it
kind of fell flat on its face in implementation. And the elaboration of
2ndEd really did get out of hand. Personally, I think there's room for
something like the bard/sorcerer, and they sure fix a number of problems
my players found when I sgifted bards to their own subclass.
--Mike
Xeno
wrote:
>In article <39c78c23...@usenet.flinthills.com>,
>incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
>
>> >The Barbarian class has certain specific abilities not available to
>> >Fighters (Rage, Uncanny Dodge, etc.) It's just as distinct from the
>> >Fighter as the Paladin or the Ranger is.
>>
>> just a few abilities doesn't make a distinct class. they still are
>> simply a fighter from the wild places. It doesn't ruin the game, but
>> just points out how they should have had a tad more flexibility in
>> base class abilities to me.
>
>Yeah, like those Rangers and Paladins can be thrown out, too. Just a few
>abilities doesn't make a distinct class.
In one way, the Barbarian and Ranger can be seen as opposites of each
other. The Ranger is a fighter from an urban civilization who has explored
the wilderness, while the Barbarian is a fighter from the wilderness who
has explored urban civilizations.
--
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Matthew Shelton a.k.a. Xeno
* E-mail: mlsh...@memphis.edu
* Homepage: http://www.people.memphis.edu/~mlsheltn
Standard Notice to SPAMMERS: Disclosure of my e-mail address
does NOT qualify as consent to send me unsolicited advertisements.
Xeno
>
>>
>>It moves it in the direction of GURPS and the Hero System, which already
>>exist, and gives up stuff that many of us find fun in D&D3.
>>
>
>but it doesn't give up anything--thats the point. and it still
>doesn't come close to the point based systems off hero or Gurps.
Four 'archetypes' hardly qualifies as a game system where a character's
class is the foundation of its design. If all a class consists of is "you
get X number of skill points, Y weapon, armor, and shield skills, and Z
number of feats", it's pretty empty and almost pointless if you ask me.
It's like comparing Kansas and New York -- technically both are States of
the U.S., but there's *nothing* there, and it wouldn't matter much at all;
you may as well make everything between the Rocky Mountains and Mississippi
River a single giant State.
If you're going to have a class system *have a class system*. All you're
doing by stripping all the classes naked is having a skill-based game but
calling it class-based instead.
Rather, a genuine class-based game ought to have at least six or more
distinct classes with unique abilities. 2E is recognizable as a class-based
system (but only if at least half the 'optional' classes and the wizard
specialists are included). 1E is undeniably class-based, and 3E even more
so.
D&D has certain sacred cows that would cause it to stop being D&D if they
were removed. Having classes which are *more* than just different
proportions of skill slots and feats is one of them. The extra things that
make a hybrid class more than the sum of the parts of a 'usual'
multiclassed version of the same character concept are vital to any class
system. These 'unnecessary' classes add atmosphere to the rules themselves.
Never mind about roleplaying some concept or picking from a menu of skills;
that's only part of it. The game system *itself* has to feel "classy". A
quartet of stripped down raw statistics doesn't do that any more than
primer gray makes a car look faster or meaner than a few coats of
professionally applied fire-engine red. Oh sure, it doesn't make the car
*run* any faster or better, but your road trips will certainly *feel*
faster or better, and it's that kind of atmosphere is what makes D&D
classes so neat.
Peter Seebach
Mike Cantrell <fiacha^nospam^@nospam.juno.com> wrote:
>One of the guiding principles of 2ndEd was that there would be 4 basic
>classes, and the subclasses would be made by applying layers of
>specialization that would distinguish them.
Yes. I don't think it worked very well. Monks got horribly corrupted by the
attempt to make them a "kind of a cleric". Druids were totally unlike any
other specialty priest, and you really couldn't plausibly make a specialty
priest that different without huge stretches.
>I really loved that concept
>when I read about it, lo those many years ago, but unfortunately, it
>kind of fell flat on its face in implementation.
I think that's because the design is bad.
>And the elaboration of
>2ndEd really did get out of hand. Personally, I think there's room for
>something like the bard/sorcerer, and they sure fix a number of problems
>my players found when I sgifted bards to their own subclass.
Well, one thing is, I think the 3E multiclass makes the "fewer archetypes, and
combine" thing *plausible*.
But, fundementally, classes are about *FLAVOR*. That's why I like the
separate classes. A paladin *SHOULD NOT* have the same spell selection as
a cleric. Ever. I *love* the existance of a spell which a paladin can
cast *and no cleric can*. That is how it *SHOULD* be. Bards can cast spells
that no other wizard can. Druids get flame strike as a *lower level spell*
than clerics.
This is what D&D is *about*. If I wanted interchangable parts, I'd play
GURPS.
Spatterface
Hari the Monk wrote in message ...>news:39c827fa...@usenet.flinthills.com...
>>
>> >
>> >Yeah, like those Rangers and Paladins can be thrown out, too. Just a
few
>> >abilities doesn't make a distinct class.
>>
>> ability.
>>
>> the Barbarian is just a fighter with less manners :)
>> >
>>
>
>With Rage, and Uncanny dodge, and Damage Resistance. I must have missed
the
>section in the PHB where the fighter gets all of those. Please, direct me
>to it, if you will.
>
>Hari the Monk
>
Hari the Annoying Monk makes his 43rd rhetorical, sarcastic and stupid
remark of the day. Damn I'm surprised he didn't just reply with RTFM. His
creative juices must be really flowing, he's using his "playing dumb" talent
again with a skill and grace seldom seen in the modern world. Bravo on your
excellent performance Hari the useless and annoying monk.
Hari the Monk
Hari the Monk
"Spatterface" <te...@polka.bikini> wrote in message
news:Kwhy5.10669$nk3.5...@newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Aaron F. Bourque
>Ahh, insults. How droll.
ITYM: Ahh, insults. How troll.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
Being grown up all the time is only a sign of immaturity.
Come on, people! Grow up! Act stupid!
David Best
I didnt even read your whole message, nor am i going to right now. Just
one comment:
you MUST be aware, if you are a "experienced AD&D DM", that the Bard,
Ranger, and Druid exsisted in AD&D as well!
Oh well. You're just a troll anyhoo, what could i expect you to know?
-Noodle
Robert Baldwin
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <39C7D00D...@mrlizard.com>,
> Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>
>> I concur, despite my suggestions on how to do it. While it's blatant
>> heresy, my opinion is that, if I *am* going to be using a class
>system,
>> then, pile on the classes! I want fifth-level farmers cavorting with
>> fourth-level barmaids! I want to convert all the old Arduin classes to
>> 3e! (Except the people who own the Arduin rights are already going to
>> release under the D20 STL, so I'll just wait!) I like to use
>exclamation
>> points!
>
>Having heard so much about Arduin over the years, I have to say, my
>curiosity is finally getting the better of me: Is there a link to a
>site the provides a good overview of the setting?
Try www.arduin.com.
:-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
"Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
jbs
Maloney) wrote:
>Actually, the Monk sticks out far worse than does the Barbarian. It's
>much easier to stick a bunch of screaming-mad Skandawhovian whatevers on
>the cold side of a vanilla pseudo-euro fantasy setting than figure out
>just HOW a bunch of Buddhists made it over.
Buddhists? I must have missed that rule. Can you point it out?
>Paladins are just fighter/clerics with a different history and some minor
>class modifications.
>
>Rangers are just fighter/druids with a different history and some minor
>class modifications.
!!!! You really ought to try reading the book before you blather this
stuff, Baloney.
jbs
Xeno
wrote:
>I see three ways the game can be: totally classless (my favorite), core
>classes with multiclassing (fighter, wizard, thief only (yes, no cleric)),
>multitude of classes without multiclassing (like 2E or 3E or most computer
>games). If there is going to be a 4E next year, then you're going to have
>to write fast because WotC won't have anything to do with cutting into
>their profits from 3E and players won't abide another change for about ten
>years.
You forgot the fourth: classes that are more than just "core" but less than
a "multitude", with multiclassing to cover any possible areas in the game
that isn't covered by an existing class. That's how 3E is, and it strikes a
pretty good balance IMO. There are still open areas like psionics and
divine sorcerers, though.
Bryan J. Maloney
<j...@excelonline.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:00:39 -0400, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J.
> Maloney) wrote:
> >Actually, the Monk sticks out far worse than does the Barbarian. It's
> >much easier to stick a bunch of screaming-mad Skandawhovian whatevers on
> >the cold side of a vanilla pseudo-euro fantasy setting than figure out
> >just HOW a bunch of Buddhists made it over.
>
> Buddhists? I must have missed that rule. Can you point it out?
It's implicit in the entire mindset--not at all a European (dark ages or
later) monkish thing.
> >Paladins are just fighter/clerics with a different history and some minor
> >class modifications.
> >
> >Rangers are just fighter/druids with a different history and some minor
> >class modifications.
>
> !!!! You really ought to try reading the book before you blather this
> stuff, Baloney.
Congratulations, you have proven your stupidity FAR better than I ever
could! Likewise, if you are going to attempt an insult, you could at
least do a bit better than what a four-year-old could come up with.
--
For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
Eric Tolle
>
> In article <8oqkssgrudc3rt2a8...@4ax.com>, jbs
> <j...@excelonline.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:00:39 -0400, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J.
> > Maloney) wrote:
> > >Actually, the Monk sticks out far worse than does the Barbarian. It's
> > >much easier to stick a bunch of screaming-mad Skandawhovian whatevers on
> > >the cold side of a vanilla pseudo-euro fantasy setting than figure out
> > >just HOW a bunch of Buddhists made it over.
> >
> > Buddhists? I must have missed that rule. Can you point it out?
>
> It's implicit in the entire mindset--not at all a European (dark ages or
> later) monkish thing.
Actually, the question is "How did a bunch of hairy barbarians get
put on the borders of Xian?". ;')
The 3rd. Edition monk is even more clearly in the genre of films
like "Chinese Ghost Story" then say, "Caedfel". In fact, most
questions about "How can the Monk do that?" could be answered by
watching appropriate Wuxia films.
FWIW though, your post _did_ give me an idea of an outré' alternate
history: Journey to the East. It would center around the efforts of
a bunch of brave heroes attempting to bring retrieve the writings of
the Lord Bhudda and bring them back to pagan Europe...not a _likely_
AH, but possibly fun.. And it would explain Buddhist monasteries
in "Europe".
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
People tend to underestimate the impact of scientific progress.
Why just fifty years ago, only a few people had even heard of DNA,
and now everybody who is somebody uses it!
Marizhavashti Kali
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
> > Buddhists? I must have missed that rule. Can you point it out?
>
> It's implicit in the entire mindset--not at all a European (dark ages or
> later) monkish thing.
It's simple enough to a) not use a buddhist mindset (which the monk
doesn't have to partake of) and b) use a setting that could plausibly
include monks.
Of course, I don't think much of limiting fantasy settings to medieval
or European conceits.
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"Atlantic City is Oz envisioned by used car salesmen and pimps."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | --Rick Glumsky, Celtic Filth
Ernst Stavro Blofeld
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:34:49 -0700, Ernst Stavro Blofeld <spe...@jhu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >I see three ways the game can be: totally classless (my favorite), core
> >classes with multiclassing (fighter, wizard, thief only (yes, no cleric)),
> >multitude of classes without multiclassing (like 2E or 3E or most computer
> >games). If there is going to be a 4E next year, then you're going to have
> >to write fast because WotC won't have anything to do with cutting into
> >their profits from 3E and players won't abide another change for about ten
> >years.
>
> You forgot the fourth: classes that are more than just "core" but less than
> a "multitude", with multiclassing to cover any possible areas in the game
> that isn't covered by an existing class. That's how 3E is, and it strikes a
> pretty good balance IMO. There are still open areas like psionics and
> divine sorcerers, though.
I didn't forget a fourth. There is no fourth. Either do it right one way or
do it right another way. Don't try to please everybody by fully employing
several solutions. It just makes a mess. I count 3E as a bastard, but closer
to the multitude of classes approach. Between the 11 PHB classes, 6? DMG
classes, and hundreds of prestige classes (you've got to expect this when the
rulebooks encourage their creation) there is a multitude of overlapping
classes with only minor differences in most cases. The ability to multiclass
is completely unnecessary in 3E, but they have a detailed (and easy to use)
system for this. The combination becomes cumbersome from a decision and
planning standpoint. So while it looks like 3E is a fourth category, you need
to know that I meant three ways the game system can be done right. Then it
isn't a fourth "right" category, it is just another "imperfect solution"
category.
ESB
Jeremy Reaban
Marizhavashti Kali wrote in message
<39CBB930...@teleport.com>...
<snip>
>It's simple enough to a) not use a buddhist mindset (which the monk
>doesn't have to partake of) and b) use a setting that could plausibly
>include monks.
While I don't know how true to history it is, the 'Sister Fidelma'
historical mystery series features an irish monk trained in unarmed
combat (the main character). Apparently, the early irish celtic
chrisitian church (or at least the monks) developed some form of
unarmed combat rather like judo, because while they didn't like to
carry weapons, they needed to defend themselves. As I said, I don't
know how true it is, but the author of the series is an irish scholar.
Another example would be the Philipines. They had their own style of
martials arts. While it was mostly fighting with sticks (Kali it's
called), there's some unarmed stuff as well. And when the Phillipines
was converted to christianity, their martial arts were adapted to
christianity.
A lot of cultures actually have their own martial arts, it's not just
a bhuddist/asian thing. That's just the most popular/widely known,
because of kung fu movies, not to mention the Beatles popularizing
bhuddism/eastern culture.. And it's often used/developed by the
religious ascetics of that culture, because of the ascetic nature of
the martial arts.
jbs
wrote:
>
>Hari the Monk wrote in message ...
>>
>>"incrdbil" <incr...@flinthills.com> wrote in message
>>news:39c827fa...@usenet.flinthills.com...
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Yeah, like those Rangers and Paladins can be thrown out, too. Just a
>few
>>> >abilities doesn't make a distinct class.
>>>
>>> the ranger and paladin have quite a major difference in spellcasting
>>> ability.
>>>
>>> the Barbarian is just a fighter with less manners :)
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>With Rage, and Uncanny dodge, and Damage Resistance. I must have missed
>the
>>section in the PHB where the fighter gets all of those. Please, direct me
>>to it, if you will.
>>
>>Hari the Monk
>>
>
>
>Hari the Annoying Monk makes his 43rd rhetorical, sarcastic and stupid
>remark of the day. Damn I'm surprised he didn't just reply with RTFM. His
>creative juices must be really flowing, he's using his "playing dumb" talent
>again with a skill and grace seldom seen in the modern world. Bravo on your
>excellent performance Hari the useless and annoying monk.
>
Damn, that was helpful. Do you deny he has a point?
jbs
jbs
wrote:
>
>>Paladin was a separate class. Different XP table. Kits were an abomination;
>>randomly unbalanced game rules introduced specially for each kit, with no
>>real continuity.
>
>Kits were what saved the individual classes from monotony. A few were
>borken, but then all were subject to DM's whim...
Always helpful to the newbie DM...
>>Yes, it was a "reaction" to 1E. It was a cure worse than the disease.
>
>2e was a huge step up from 1e..where haracters did little except what
>their class told them to do.
Funny, I got the same feeling about 2E while I was playing it.
>e it as a problem, and I don't see it as "stumbling". It turns
>>out that kits suck, and a broader selection of balanced classes is what's
>>called for.
>
>nope--you simply can't do enough classes to cover the variety that
>kits coudl do so well.
One thing I never understood about kits: If you're going to go to the
trouble of producing kits, why not just make a new class? Kits aren't
a whole lot easier to crank out than classes.
>We dont need an archer class, a pugilist class, a gladiator class, a
>Sage class, a plumber class,.....
You're right. Of course, we don't need kits for them either.
>>
>>No, they are not. Subclasses were a design mistake. Classes seem to work
>>better.
>
>nope--you really have missed the mark. Categories with
>specializations within are easier to manage and design around than
>either : limiting people with cookie cutter classes or having a
>million different classes running about.
Not really. Even games like GURPS are turing to a "template" style of
character creation. Check out GURPS Wizards, Warriors and the
upcoming Rogues.
>>Barbarians are a useful, interesting, class. They are not, IMHO, just
>>"a fighter with feats".
>
>But they are. Unlike a Ranger or Paladin, who have gotten in touch
>with powers/calling outside of what you can normally train for, the
>Barbarian is simply a fighter with an altered skill selection, and
>really not worth a seperate class.
Rage is not a feat. If it were a feat how would you keep it from
being taken by anyone? It is a class ability of Barbarians.
>. Sorcerers
>>are not at all a subclass; they are a totally different way of getting spells
>>than wizards.
>
>they are an alternate spell selection system to please palyers, with a
>few artificial fluff bits thrown in trying to justify them as a class.
>they are mages for those who don't like having pre-memorized spells.
!!! Have you even read the book? The only things wizards and
sorcerers have in common are d4 HD, spell lists, and familiars. IMB,
that's enough different to neccesitate a new class.
>>Finally, monks, most of all, are not a subclass of anything.
>
>Close enough to fold into clerics possibly.
Because they cast divine spells?
>they really don't fit
>well into standard D7D settings I think. I just don't think martial
>arts belong in the standard fantasy campaign (based on western mythos,
>not those of the far east) as an option for players, but best saved
>for a rare or unique NPC/Villian. But hey, some folks like that
>thing.
All of which is beside the point.
>I myself loved Oriental Adventures..a settign where monks truly
>belonged as combat characters.
>
>>Because CHARACTER KITS SUCK.
>
>
>>
>>D&D was designed, originally, for classes. They work well.
>
>no, they don't--if you don't leave more room to customize the classes,
>they lead to annoying limitations. i think supplements will cure
>this..after all the PHB is just the base starting point.
What amazes me is that you want to cut back on the number of classes
possible for players to choose and then complain about how the current
allotment is limiting.
>>And spell spheres, as implemented in 2E, were an abysmal, stupid, failure.
>
>now thats the wackiest thing I've heard yet. They worked wonderfully
>better than anything in 1E.
They were nowhere near as balanced as 3Es Domains though.
>>
>>I did. It sucked. It was an abysmal, abusive, stinking mass of imbalanced
>>rules and game-breakers.
>
>in your heavily biased opinion.
And you're arguing facts?
>>
>>No, really, we aren't. These rules, unlike 2E, are viable. 2E was a dramatic
>>disimprovement over 1E, precisely because it tried to make all the rules
>>special and unique, with no continuity. Every kit had a unique rule that *did
>>not exist anywhere else*. No way to compare it with anything. No rules for
>>interactions.
>
>okay--if you think 2e was worse than 1e--your beyond rational thought.
>goodbye.
2E, in fact, wasn't different enough from 1E to say either way.
jbs
incrdbil
>
>Always helpful to the newbie DM...
live and learn, thats the only way they can :)
>
>>>Yes, it was a "reaction" to 1E. It was a cure worse than the disease.
>>
>>2e was a huge step up from 1e..where haracters did little except what
>>their class told them to do.
>
>Funny, I got the same feeling about 2E while I was playing it.
ok--look at the wide range of skilloptions in first edition..:)
Really, when I speak of @E, you have to include the players options
books, that really improved the game. Made it really AD&D 2.5 E
>
>
>One thing I never understood about kits: If you're going to go to the
>trouble of producing kits, why not just make a new class? Kits aren't
>a whole lot easier to crank out than classes.
far easier--as kits merely represent a variety in the class. A
swashbuckler doesnt need a seperate experience chart, save throws, or
all the similarities to the fighter listed--mere;y the differences.
Of course, kits using the PO books were best done as guidelines--the
actual advantages/disadvanatges given by kits were best purchased
under the class customization rules, and not given asa freebies.
>
>>We dont need an archer class, a pugilist class, a gladiator class, a
>>Sage class, a plumber class,.....
>
>You're right. Of course, we don't need kits for them either.
only if you want to play that type of character, yet not have the
generic skills of every other fighter in the world.
"Yay, I"m a woodlands archer--yet for soem reason I am completely
comfortable in wearing full plate armor!"
>
>Not really. Even games like GURPS are turing to a "template" style of
>character creation. Check out GURPS Wizards, Warriors and the
>upcoming Rogues.
Eh, I dont look at GURPS that often. No need to--I have all the Hero
system books :)
>
>
>
>Rage is not a feat. If it were a feat how would you keep it from
>being taken by anyone? It is a class ability of Barbarians.
pah, make it a feat, only usable by fighters not of lawful alignment.
Why should a barbarian be the only type of fighters in the world who
can go beserk?
>
>>they are an alternate spell selection system to please palyers, with a
>>few artificial fluff bits thrown in trying to justify them as a class.
>>they are mages for those who don't like having pre-memorized spells.
>
>!!! Have you even read the book? The only things wizards and
>sorcerers have in common are d4 HD, spell lists, and familiars. IMB,
>that's enough different to neccesitate a new class.
I read the book, and I'm not fooled by the little fluffy bits and
peuices of information that were made up to try and make them look
different. Charisma instead of intelligence, not as organized--all
tack on bits made up in about 5 minutes to disguise what the class
really is--a different system for getting mage spells to satisfy
players.
If they wanted it to be a different class, they would have had unique
spells, and different ways to utilize powers. (Possibly a point system
based of CON--casting til their personal energy was exhausted..then
using hit points and abilitiies as an emergency reserve to cast
spells.)
Sure, there are a few differences, but not enough to mask a class that
is simply a mage who doesnt have to memorize spells.
>
>>>Finally, monks, most of all, are not a subclass of anything.
>>
>>Close enough to fold into clerics possibly.
>
>Because they cast divine spells?
the metal focus, general fighting abilities. They could have simply
dropped them from the game as well, and no one would have really
missed them.
>
>2E, in fact, wasn't different enough from 1E to say either way.
>
very different, especially once the PO books were aded in. Absolute
improvement over 1E without question
Bryan J. Maloney
<j...@connectria.com> wrote:
> Marizhavashti Kali wrote in message
> <39CBB930...@teleport.com>...
> <snip>
> >It's simple enough to a) not use a buddhist mindset (which the monk
> >doesn't have to partake of) and b) use a setting that could plausibly
> >include monks.
>
>
> While I don't know how true to history it is, the 'Sister Fidelma'
> historical mystery series features an irish monk trained in unarmed
> combat (the main character). Apparently, the early irish celtic
> chrisitian church (or at least the monks) developed some form of
> unarmed combat rather like judo, because while they didn't like to
On the planet Zahrquahr they might have, but not on earth.
Fully-developed martial arts did exist in Europe, but they were not
developed by monks, they were developed by the warriors and knights.
Thus, it would be the Fighters who would master martial arts.
> Another example would be the Philipines. They had their own style of
> martials arts. While it was mostly fighting with sticks (Kali it's
> called), there's some unarmed stuff as well. And when the Phillipines
You've got things mixed up. The Filipino martial arts are very much
within the Asian sphere of martial arts tradition (which has usually
heavily emphasized weaponry--the unarmed emphasis is a bit of an
aberration). There might or might not be some Spanish influence, but the
jury is out on that question. As an aside, Christopher Umbs recently
placed second in a FMA spada y dega open in NYC, but he didn't use FMA--he
used rapier skills.
> A lot of cultures actually have their own martial arts, it's not just
> a bhuddist/asian thing. That's just the most popular/widely known,
But the whole "monks who invent and preserve supernatural martial arts" IS
an Asian thing.
jbs
wrote:
>Really, when I speak of @E, you have to include the players options
>books, that really improved the game. Made it really AD&D 2.5 E
I don't have to include them. And I'm usually happy to ignore them
since they introduced more problems than they fixed.
>only if you want to play that type of character, yet not have the
>generic skills of every other fighter in the world.
>
>"Yay, I"m a woodlands archer--yet for soem reason I am completely
>comfortable in wearing full plate armor!"
Do you really need a kit to tell you you're not comfortable wearing
FPA?
>pah, make it a feat, only usable by fighters not of lawful alignment.
>Why should a barbarian be the only type of fighters in the world who
>can go beserk?
Why should non-lawful fighters be the only ones who can go beserk?
Why make it a feat to say that only X can take it where X is so
limited it may as well be its own seperate class.
>I read the book, and I'm not fooled by the little fluffy bits and
>peuices of information that were made up to try and make them look
>different. Charisma instead of intelligence, not as organized--all
>tack on bits made up in about 5 minutes to disguise what the class
>really is--a different system for getting mage spells to satisfy
>players.
>
>If they wanted it to be a different class, they would have had unique
>spells, and different ways to utilize powers. (Possibly a point system
>based of CON--casting til their personal energy was exhausted..then
>using hit points and abilitiies as an emergency reserve to cast
>spells.)
>
>Sure, there are a few differences, but not enough to mask a class that
>is simply a mage who doesnt have to memorize spells.
That is the whole point of the class!
>>>>Finally, monks, most of all, are not a subclass of anything.
>>>
>>>Close enough to fold into clerics possibly.
>>
>>Because they cast divine spells?
>
>the metal focus, general fighting abilities. They could have simply
>dropped them from the game as well, and no one would have really
>missed them.
True. Same for barbarians and assassins, AFAIC.
>>
>>2E, in fact, wasn't different enough from 1E to say either way.
>>
>very different, especially once the PO books were aded in. Absolute
>improvement over 1E without question
Ah, but I thought the PO books made it 2.5E.
jbs
incrdbil
>On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:09:25 GMT, incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil)
>wrote:
>>Really, when I speak of @E, you have to include the players options
>>books, that really improved the game. Made it really AD&D 2.5 E
>
>I don't have to include them. And I'm usually happy to ignore them
>since they introduced more problems than they fixed.
pah. "oh no--there are optiosn to choose from--how evil"!!
>
>Do you really need a kit to tell you you're not comfortable wearing
>FPA?
should an character under 3e, who was brought up in a culture that
didnt have much use for heavy armor, and came from such a poor
background that he never saw it, be proficient with it just because
the class has it?
>
>>
>>Sure, there are a few differences, but not enough to mask a class that
>>is simply a mage who doesnt have to memorize spells.
>
>That is the whole point of the class!
so, then, you agree, it''s a simplegame mechanic option maquerading as
a class :)
>>>
>>very different, especially once the PO books were aded in. Absolute
>>improvement over 1E without question
>
>Ah, but I thought the PO books made it 2.5E.
with PO stuff added in, it was an advancement over 2.0--or should I
say enhancement. but basic 2.0 was an improvement over 1e and it's
add ons as well in almost every sense..util thy just went whacky with
all the supplemental handbooks.
Of course, tossing out all the supplemental handbooks and designing
things withthe PO books worked far better for us, and reduced the
handbooks to mere reference material.
>jbs
incrdbil
incrdbil
Adjustment applied to it.
incrdbil
Scott Taylor
<incr...@flinthills.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:43:13 -0500, jbs <j...@excelonline.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:09:25 GMT, incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil)
> >wrote:
> >Do you really need a kit to tell you you're not comfortable wearing
> >FPA?
>
> should an character under 3e, who was brought up in a culture that
> didnt have much use for heavy armor, and came from such a poor
> background that he never saw it, be proficient with it just because
> the class has it?
Does it *really* have to say "oh, by the way, sometimes the cultures
you create won't have some of these features, because they are Stone
Age and don't have full plate armor, or whatever" for you to be able to
tell your gods-rotted players that no, Ogg of the Stone Club doesn't
suddenly know how to use full-plate just because a wizard hauled his
ass along from StoneAgeLand to RennaissanceLand?
Get new fucking players, if it does. The 0th rule is that the GM say
what is and isn't, in the end.
--
Scott Taylor
Freelancer for Hire
Have Powerbook, Will Travel
bone-tired of whiny gits
John Rudd
>
> In article <ssnl5co...@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeremy Reaban"
> <j...@connectria.com> wrote:
>
> > Marizhavashti Kali wrote in message
> > <39CBB930...@teleport.com>...
> > <snip>
> > >It's simple enough to a) not use a buddhist mindset (which the monk
> > >doesn't have to partake of) and b) use a setting that could plausibly
> > >include monks.
> >
> >
> > While I don't know how true to history it is, the 'Sister Fidelma'
> > historical mystery series features an irish monk trained in unarmed
> > combat (the main character). Apparently, the early irish celtic
> > chrisitian church (or at least the monks) developed some form of
> > unarmed combat rather like judo, because while they didn't like to
>
> developed by monks, they were developed by the warriors and knights.
> Thus, it would be the Fighters who would master martial arts.
>
And, historically, who developed the martial arts of East Asia?
There are the legends about a monk who observed the movements of
animals.
There's also the fact of Buddhism coming over the mountains from India,
and the fact that India was exposed to the armies and fighting styles of
Alexander, including Pankration and Wrestling.
It's entirely reasonable to suggest that East Asian martial arts were
developed by european _warriors_ (especially for purposes of a role
playing game), and then refined and extended by East Asian martial
artists (not all of whom were monks, not even when counting those who
added to the body of knowlege of the fighting arts).
From there, it's not unreasonable to suggest that a european monestary
used pankration and/or boxing and/or wrestling as a means to keep the
monks in shape, and from there they may have done some development of
their own.
--
John "kzin" Rudd http://www.domain.org/users/kzin
Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last. (Physics of Quarks)
-----===== Kein Mitleid Fu:r MicroSoft (www.kmfms.com) ======-----
incrdbil
>Does it *really* have to say "oh, by the way, sometimes the cultures
>you create won't have some of these features, because they are Stone
>Age and don't have full plate armor, or whatever" for you to be able to
>tell your gods-rotted players that no, Ogg of the Stone Club doesn't
>suddenly know how to use full-plate just because a wizard hauled his
>ass along from StoneAgeLand to RennaissanceLand?
>
>Get new fucking players, if it does. The 0th rule is that the GM say
>what is and isn't, in the end.
>
well, i guess the GM may as well write his own system, if he wants a
little character flexibility.
So, players should be discouraged from taking characters whose
backgrounds/conceptiosn might limit them from what the cookie cutter
class template could do?
"Ok--due to the area you were born, you can't use heavy armor, your
culture doesnt use crossbows, or pole arm weapons. in exchange for
these limitations--you get a cookie".
Nelson Lu
incrdbil <incr...@flinthills.com> wrote:
>"Ok--due to the area you were born, you can't use heavy armor, your
>culture doesnt use crossbows, or pole arm weapons. in exchange for
>these limitations--you get a cookie".
Sounds good for that 4th level Chef!
Scott Taylor
> >Does it *really* have to say "oh, by the way, sometimes the cultures
> >you create won't have some of these features, because they are Stone
> >Age and don't have full plate armor, or whatever" for you to be able to
> >tell your gods-rotted players that no, Ogg of the Stone Club doesn't
> >suddenly know how to use full-plate just because a wizard hauled his
> >ass along from StoneAgeLand to RennaissanceLand?
> >
> >Get new fucking players, if it does. The 0th rule is that the GM say
> >what is and isn't, in the end.
> well, i guess the GM may as well write his own system, if he wants a
> little character flexibility.
Oh boo bloody-fucking-hoo. You don't like it, there are plenty of other
fucking games out there. Go play GURPS or something. (Nothing wrong
with GURPS... but we ain't talking about it here).
> So, players should be discouraged from taking characters whose
> backgrounds/conceptiosn might limit them from what the cookie cutter
> class template could do?
>
> "Ok--due to the area you were born, you can't use heavy armor, your
> culture doesnt use crossbows, or pole arm weapons. in exchange for
> these limitations--you get a cookie".
Wahhh.
Use your bloody fucking imagination. You're the DM. You're *allowed to
do that*. The rules don't need to tell you "oh, by the way, if you take
shit away, you should be prepared to give shit as well, because some
players are whiny bastards who hate to feel shafted by their own
fucking character concepts." Do you need an itemized list of each and
every way you might want to improve this twit's life to make up for
their own concept?
Grow up. Take control of your game. The rulebook is not the fucking
gospel; it's a set of guidelines. You're allowed to change them...
you're even <gasp> encouraged to.
--
Scott Taylor
Freelancer for Hire
Have Powerbook, Will Travel
No Whiners!
Hari the Monk
Hari the Monk
"Scott Taylor" <izzy...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:260920001218102322%izzy...@rochester.rr.com...
> In article <39d0191...@usenet.flinthills.com>, incrdbil
> <incr...@flinthills.com> wrote:
>
> > >Does it *really* have to say "oh, by the way, sometimes the cultures
> > >you create won't have some of these features, because they are Stone
> > >Age and don't have full plate armor, or whatever" for you to be able to
> > >tell your gods-rotted players that no, Ogg of the Stone Club doesn't
> > >suddenly know how to use full-plate just because a wizard hauled his
> > >ass along from StoneAgeLand to RennaissanceLand?
> > >
> > >Get new fucking players, if it does. The 0th rule is that the GM say
> > >what is and isn't, in the end.
>
> > well, i guess the GM may as well write his own system, if he wants a
> > little character flexibility.
>
> Oh boo bloody-fucking-hoo. You don't like it, there are plenty of other
> fucking games out there. Go play GURPS or something. (Nothing wrong
> with GURPS... but we ain't talking about it here).
>
> > So, players should be discouraged from taking characters whose
> > backgrounds/conceptiosn might limit them from what the cookie cutter
> > class template could do?
> >
> > "Ok--due to the area you were born, you can't use heavy armor, your
> > culture doesnt use crossbows, or pole arm weapons. in exchange for
> > these limitations--you get a cookie".
>
incrdbil
>Oh boo bloody-fucking-hoo. You don't like it, there are plenty of other
>fucking games out there. Go play GURPS or something. (Nothing wrong
>with GURPS... but we ain't talking about it here).
No--I'd rather wotC add a little flexibility to the class structure.
they have a fien system to work within, no reason they couldn't make
it easy to do--if they are not already planing to do so in their
supplements.
>
>Wahhh.
>
>Use your bloody fucking imagination. You're the DM. You're *allowed to
>do that*. The rules don't need to tell you "oh, by the way, if you take
>shit away, you should be prepared to give shit as well, because some
>players are whiny bastards who hate to feel shafted by their own
>fucking character concepts." Do you need an itemized list of each and
>every way you might want to improve this twit's life to make up for
>their own concept?
>
>Grow up.
and fuck you oo. Forgive me for wanting a little more from a system,
fanboy.
Take control of your game. The rulebook is not the fucking
>gospel; it's a set of guidelines. You're allowed to change them...
>you're even <gasp> encouraged to.
>
I don't need you top tell me that fuckwad. However, when you get to
issues such as designing a flexible class design or alteration system,
a lead or insights from the game designers usually helps..if is not
the preferabel way to go for the system in general.