|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Nov 11, 2020 11:39:23 GMT -6
I might have shared this story before, and it's from 2nd edition, but here it is: I once played an elf figher/ magic-user but I introduced myself at 1st level as "the greatest thief in 12 dimensions" (it was a Planescape campaign.) The group was around 5th level before they realized all my "thief" abilities were spells and kit abilities...
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 11, 2020 23:43:11 GMT -6
It's really about what you want your own variant of the game to be. This is nearly identical to a diagram I posted on my blog back in March 2010. ![](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_P61pW1ywLpk/S5SpjdkNXuI/AAAAAAAABko/qitZ5ObeAeg/s320/class_balance.jpg) I suggested those in between classes be Paladin, Barbarian, and Bard. At the time I was thinking Scout would be a better replacement for "Thief", I've since changed my mind. Thief is fine.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 12, 2020 16:17:35 GMT -6
Nice tdenmark. I guess there's a bit of wriggle-room in nearly identical. For me, the important distinction is that my figure is built around the core game capabilities (fighting, magic, and --subsequently--sneaking) which are not the same thing as the six ability scores (strength, intelligence, wisdom, etc.). Interesting that you've called a superclass of player types "Skilled". I've also been wondering whether it would be useful to broaden out the "Sneaking" capability on my figure to a "Skills" capability. This would be more general-purpose but might feel less original in flavour. Still bouncing that one around...
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 12, 2020 20:37:08 GMT -6
Nice tdenmark. I guess there's a bit of wriggle-room in nearly identical. For me, the important distinction is that my figure is built around the core game capabilities (fighting, magic, and --subsequently--sneaking) which are not the same thing as the six ability scores (strength, intelligence, wisdom, etc.). Interesting that you've called a superclass of player types "Skilled". I've also been wondering whether it would be useful to broaden out the "Sneaking" capability on my figure to a "Skills" capability. This would be more general-purpose but might feel less original in flavour. Still bouncing that one around... I stand by my "nearly identical" statement. The core of the concept was the tri-fecta: Warriors (fighting), Spellcasters (magic), and Skilled (sneaking). I only incidentally put the abilities in after I made the diagram because I noticed how well they'd fit. I'm not trying to take credit or steal your thunder. It's likely not a terribly original idea and goes way back. I just thought it was neat that we diagrammed it in similar ways. I like the simplicity of yours. I should add that I put Paladins in place of Clerics because I've long thought they were redundant. I would get rid of clerics if it were up to me, and make paladins of every flavor for the god they represent.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Nov 12, 2020 21:06:12 GMT -6
You'd certainly think so, from Bilbo's example, but the only mechanical benefits they get are the save bonus and the Chainmail missile-fire bonus.
Whereas dwarves have the notice traps/shifting walls/new construction thing and elves have the notice hidden/secret doors thing.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Nov 12, 2020 21:09:38 GMT -6
I should add that I put Paladins in place of Clerics because I've long thought they were redundant. I would get rid of clerics if it were up to me, and make paladins of every flavor for the god they represent.
You have a definite point there... The monster hunter/Van Helsing type, or the "Knight Templar" model, for clerics overlaps a lot with the paladin archetype - which may be why clerics over time shifted toward being more 'priest' types. (Besides the name - "cleric" suggests more a clergy-type than an adventurer.)
IMO, adventuring "clerics" should be specifically adventurers: monster-hunters, or crusaders against the enemies of their church/deity/etc. - full-time in-temple priests/clergy are not "clerics" in the adventurer/character-class sense.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 12, 2020 21:15:21 GMT -6
I'm curious, when starting a new group does anyone experience the "we need a cleric!"..."fine, I'll play a cleric" discussion. Or do you always find someone enthusiastically choosing to play a cleric?
In my experience someone always wants to play a paladin, few want to play a cleric.
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Nov 13, 2020 0:12:45 GMT -6
I have enthusiastically wanted to play a Cleric before. This was 1e AD&D, though, and I wasn't interested in being the town healer. This was before the Survival Manuals, and I wanted to be a Cleric with a big mace and a big shield on a warhorse and just beat the absolute crap out of the Temple's enemies. They made me go into a dungeon and Turn Undead. I was very disappointed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2020 0:35:55 GMT -6
Yeah Thieves World but especially Thieves Guild, which was thieves only by premise.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 5, 2023 4:27:43 GMT -6
Nice tdenmark. I guess there's a bit of wriggle-room in nearly identical. For me, the important distinction is that my figure is built around the core game capabilities (fighting, magic, and --subsequently--sneaking) which are not the same thing as the six ability scores (strength, intelligence, wisdom, etc.). Interesting that you've called a superclass of player types "Skilled". I've also been wondering whether it would be useful to broaden out the "Sneaking" capability on my figure to a "Skills" capability. This would be more general-purpose but might feel less original in flavour. Still bouncing that one around... It was the outer ring that I was referring to, and what this idea was built around. I may not have used the exact same terms, but hopefully it is clear that Warriors = Fighting, Spellcasters = Magic, and Skilled = Sneaking (just expanded a bit). I added the abilities in there because they fit so well, that was tertiary to this. Not trying to steal your thunder, I quite like your Ven diagrams. And I thought it was interesting we had independently come to similar conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Jan 6, 2023 9:21:20 GMT -6
I'm curious, when starting a new group does anyone experience the "we need a cleric!"..."fine, I'll play a cleric" discussion. Or do you always find someone enthusiastically choosing to play a cleric? In my experience someone always wants to play a paladin, few want to play a cleric. Um. Yeah. No. Never. Wholly anecdotal, obviously. But in the entirety of my years (since round about 1986), and discussions with buddies and other groups (admittedly NOT a lot)….I’ve almost never seen, nor heard of a cleric being played, let alone wished to be played. Ever. Despite knowing it’s supposedly an ‘essential’ class (and I’ve always played ‘classic’ D&D, never AD&D, and over the last 10 years, games more along the line of Original)….it’s… well...almost as though the class nigh doesn’t even exist. Never missed it. Honestly don’t even want it, tbh. I want sword-swingers, spell-slingers, and feisty, scrappy, tough, sneakers.
|
|