Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2022 21:26:21 GMT -6
These days I find it really hard to justify using any classes other than "fighting-man" (which can be used to create any character type that doesn't use magic) and "magic-user" (which, by selection of spells, can create any character type that uses magic).
Anything else is a waste of space.
But then I'm a grumpy grognard who thrives on minimalism in his old age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Jan 4, 2022 21:33:31 GMT -6
My current campaign has d/evolved to such a state. Anything that comes close to other D&D character-types will just be variations on these types.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 4, 2022 23:56:41 GMT -6
I agree to some extent. I don't see much need for classes like paladin or illusionist, but to me there are appealing concepts that cannot be well represented by magic-users and fighters. Go Ku of Dragonball Z fame, for example, doesn't fit into either category. Not is he a combination of the two.
For me, I'm perfectly happy including clerics and monks (my own version, based on, but not similar to supplement II). After that, it isn't much of a leap to adding in the rest of the sub-classes.
I also find the various sub-classes to be a useful shorthand for world-building. "A secret underground grotto run by a 9th-level assassin, served by 12 underlings" makes a fine description of a wilderness hex.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 5, 2022 0:56:26 GMT -6
When using only FM and MU, can MUs select cleric spells to be healers, too? Or does it mean the cleric spell list is obsolete?
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jan 5, 2022 1:58:30 GMT -6
I like the idea of ditching subclasses, even if just to start. They are very setting defining, but too alluring. Modern day players don't seem to realize these are niche classes and nowhere near as useful as the core. More of a later ploy for players who have really mastered most of the game and are looking for a unique challenge. Heck you could say the exact same thing about all those demi-humans.
Thief is not a full class in my book. Not team oriented either and can be disruptive to the game.
However, I have an entire NPC behavioral game design, the Alignment game, for Cleric players to play. So I offer the core 3 every time.
...Not that they can't all choose to play 1/2 orc barbarians every time... and avoid the other stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2022 7:40:23 GMT -6
As a Gray Mouser lover I often consider that every "Magic-User" is a "Thief" and the other way around. So I don't have a Thief class.
As I consider Cleric as a Paladin instead of a Priest, the class is still useful to me.
(I can't see how a "Priest" would be there adventuring, and if he's fighting and killing others, he's more like a Crusader, so, a Paladin. I know that Paladins, Crusaders and Templars aren't the same but, we're abstracting right?)
But I don't see any reason to go for more than three classes.
Playing "classless" also works for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2022 8:58:55 GMT -6
I agree to some extent. I don't see much need for classes like paladin or illusionist, but to me there are appealing concepts that cannot be well represented by magic-users and fighters. Go Ku of Dragonball Z fame, for example, doesn't fit into either category. Not is he a combination of the two. For me, I'm perfectly happy including clerics and monks (my own version, based on, but not similar to supplement II). After that, it isn't much of a leap to adding in the rest of the sub-classes. I also find the various sub-classes to be a useful shorthand for world-building. "A secret underground grotto run by a 9th-level assassin, served by 12 underlings" makes a fine description of a wilderness hex. Honestly, I could run an entire game with just fighting-man stats. You can go really minimalist with the basic idea of D&D. Some of the original Blackmoor players don't even use rules at all, and they still have fun doing it. However, I am with you in that I like the "flavor" and "world building" aspects of things like Druids, Monks etc. That's why I generally run games that include more classes/races. It's not so much about the mechanical complexity as players having something to look at and imagine cool places, people and events in a world they can identify with. If you can get players thinking in that direction, the campaign writes itself. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 5, 2022 9:53:28 GMT -6
I go back and forth. Sometimes I want all the classes of every variation imaginable; Barbarian Sentinel of the Druidic Order of Mushrooms and Fungi.
Other times I want ultra minimalism: there are only fighting men and spell casters.
It depends on the game and the setting. I do not consider this a bug of classes, it is a feature.
Having rejected 2nd edition AD&D during the 90's and playing mostly GURPS I got sick and tired of all the fiddliness of making up your own character from a million options. 3rd edition pulled me back into the D&D fold. Give me classes any day! Makes for such a better game.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 5, 2022 9:58:43 GMT -6
When using only FM and MU, can MUs select cleric spells to be healers, too? Or does it mean the cleric spell list is obsolete? The question is aimed at the OP, but if I may... When playing ultra minimal (fighters & casters) I like to have all the spells dumped into one list. The player crafts their own unique spell caster. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 5, 2022 9:59:02 GMT -6
@qomannon , I read you. And you are in very good company, as delta runs his games without CLs. CLs work for me, because I interpret them as a cross between a crusader and a "Van Helsing" type. IMC there is a single "church of law." Each cleric is a member of an order of religious knights and each cleric chooses a "patron saint" that grants miraculous answers to prayers ("spells"). Evil CLs are a multitudinous barely mutually recognizing cadre of thousands of different cults of diabolical, demonic, infernal, nefarious, evil deities. Pagan deities are "neutral," nature stuff, whose priests are either entirely mundane or kind of druid-like through ritual action only. Pagan priests are not an adventuring class. So my CLs are the "mixed class" of fighter and magic-user. That is how I make it work. But a classic S&S campaign world should be, IMHO, just FM and MU (or FM and CL? As sorcerers in classic S&S are summoners and binders of demons and the dead, etc.). In fact, perhaps MU (CL) should be ONLY CHAOTIC! So, fight on! |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 5, 2022 10:24:45 GMT -6
Thanks tetramorph for the shout-out. I can sympathize with this feeling particularly because I've been doing development work on my OD&D combat simulator in the last few weeks, and now have it at the point where the fighter and wizard PC classes are implemented and nothing else. It's doubtful I'll add more, because it seems anything else is effectively somewhere in-between on that continuum, and unlikely to give extra useful results. The analytic interaction of fighters & wizards is complicated enough. It's true that I play without clerics and it usually infects my players once they see it in action and they wind up running their own games that way. I make potions of healing available on the market and that covers up most of the use-case. However, I add in thieves because it seems to synch up with pulp literature, and three is a magic number? Manifesto. In some sense if you play with just Fighters & Wizards then you're back to playing Chainmail, right? That was the initial impetus for a fantasy game. |
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Jan 5, 2022 10:53:15 GMT -6
Given that Clerics earn spells at 2nd level, I approach Clerics as Warriors who have chosen to be Lawful from the beginning and who demonstrate their devotion and desire to be a walking manifestation of that force/faction/side in the cosmic struggle. When they earn this status of Champion, they gain access to the Cleric/Champion spell list. They function as Warriors in all other respects [XP and HD progression, armor and weapons available (including using sharp/pointy weapons, even magic swords)].
If the question is raised, then why would any player play a Warrior [or why wouldn't they all play Champions], it comes down to the non-game mechanics, such as always having a voice over their shoulder on what they should be doing, only being able to hire Lawful hirelings, pursuing adventures that further the causes of Law, and so on. Many players don't want that burden.
When it comes to other sub-classy kinds of wants, like Barbarian for example, if there's a desire to go beyond the "roleplay" aspect and have mechanics-altering abilities, I'll work with a player to set some mechanics-relevant benefits and mechanics-relevant hindrances that work off the base character-type. Barbarians would be Warriors then, with the adjustments of ignoring the movement penalties in a wilderness setting, et. al., in exchange for a reduction of XP for (or simply prohibition of) using plate mail perhaps, et. al., etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 5, 2022 16:48:11 GMT -6
When using only FM and MU, can MUs select cleric spells to be healers, too? Or does it mean the cleric spell list is obsolete? The question is aimed at the OP, but if I may... When playing ultra minimal (fighters & casters) I like to have all the spells dumped into one list. The player crafts their own unique spell caster. Yeah, that's how I'd do it, too. I guess it wasn't that clear, but the question was indeed for @qomannon . I'd like to see how the rest would/does manage their spell lists, though!  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 5, 2022 17:53:35 GMT -6
As a Gray Mouser lover I often consider that every "Magic-User" is a "Thief" and the other way around. So I don't have a Thief class. I enjoy the gist of the thread above but, for me, thieves are the optimal class for a game of: getting the treasure without getting killed. I don't agree that every thief is a M-U, however. Smeagol, Baggins, F-a-g-i-n (Proboards won't let me type the name of this famous character) and the Artful Dodger, for example, are all archetypical fictional thieves who certainly weren't magic users. In a game with just two classes (F-M and M-U) how about this? Thieves are M-Us with no spells. It follows they would also have no spell research and limited (if any?) magic item manufacture. Possibly they might still be allowed to "fudge" reading spell scrolls. One might be tempted to then allow thieves the F-M's weapons as compensation (but no jousting!). Recall, however, the important distinction between fighters and thieves is that thieves are not meant to fight! So why give them tools they are not meant to use? Dagger and staff(/sap/cudgel) keeps it simple and does the job  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 5, 2022 18:05:43 GMT -6
As a Gray Mouser lover I often consider that every "Magic-User" is a "Thief" and the other way around. So I don't have a Thief class. I enjoy the gist of the thread above but, for me, thieves are the optimal class for a game of: getting the treasure without getting killed. I don't agree that every thief is a M-U, however. Smeagol, Baggins, F-a-g-i-n (Proboards won't let me type the name of this famous character) and the Artful Dodger, for example, are all archetypical fictional thieves who certainly weren't magic users. In a game with just two classes (F-M and M-U) how about this? Thieves are M-Us with no spells. It follows they would also have no spell research and limited (if any?) magic item manufacture. Possibly they might still be allowed to "fudge" reading spell scrolls. One might be tempted to then allow thieves the F-M's weapons as compensation (but no jousting!). Recall, however, the important distinction between fighters and thieves is that thieves are not meant to fight! So why give them tools they are not meant to use? Dagger and staff(/sap/cudgel) keeps it simple and does the job Thieves are fighting men who are good at sneaking and stealing. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 5, 2022 18:27:58 GMT -6
New player: "You don't have thieves in your campaign, Tetramorph?"
Tetramorph: "You are all thieves."
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 5, 2022 20:58:34 GMT -6
Thieves are fighting men who are good at sneaking and stealing. Tetramorph: "You are all thieves." I've posted on thieves elsewhere so I'll try to not derail this thread and instead point to here. In the context of F-M and M-U only game I thought the thief as a M-U with no spells was a pragmatic option, but by all means go with whatever works for you ! |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 5, 2022 23:33:22 GMT -6
Thieves are fighting men who are good at sneaking and stealing. Tetramorph: "You are all thieves." I've posted on thieves elsewhere so I'll try to not derail this thread and instead point to here. In the context of F-M and M-U only game I thought the thief as a M-U with no spells was a pragmatic option, but by all means go with whatever works for you ! Every post on every D&D forum ever could end with ...in my game.  |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 6, 2022 0:10:11 GMT -6
Every post on every D&D forum ever could end with ...in my game. Every statement in human history could also end with "from my perspective" or "that's at least how I see it. That would solve (could have solved) a lot of problems. I'm now imagining a mob boss. "If you don't pay for protection, I can't guarantee my friend Luigi would break your kneecaps while you're sleeping. At least that's how I see it." |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 6, 2022 5:04:36 GMT -6
Thief is not a full class in my book. Not team oriented either and can be disruptive to the game. I haven't found this at all. My thief players are very team-oriented and don't cause any disruption to the party or to the campaign. I go back and forth. Sometimes I want all the classes of every variation imaginable; Barbarian Sentinel of the Druidic Order of Mushrooms and Fungi. Other times I want ultra minimalism: there are only fighting men and spell casters. I am the same way, but my players prefer a lot of options. If I gave up the DM screen forever and became a full-time player, I could function just fine with Fighter and MU and maybe thief. Most of my players dislike playing pure fighters, and if they are a fighting type drift to paladins and rangers. As a Gray Mouser lover I often consider that every "Magic-User" is a "Thief" and the other way around. So I don't have a Thief class. I struggle with this. I see magic user and thief as totally different skillsets and Mouser (one of my all-time favorite literary characters, and a favorite of mine to play in RPGs) is unusual in that he has this desire to dabble in the dark arts even though he's not really a magic user. Mouser (to me) is a clear fighter-thief who just happens to have started out as an apprentice, and thinks he knows a lot more magic than he actually knows. I'm not sure how to equate that with a Gandalf type (who is, admittedly, an angel in Tolkien's mythology but seems like a traditional magic-user in the books) or Merlin or other spellcasters from literature. Seems like putting thief and wizard together all of the time emphasizes a "court charlatan" vibe and diminishes the magic-user class. I suppose I would have to ponder this further. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 11:30:40 GMT -6
When using only FM and MU, can MUs select cleric spells to be healers, too? Or does it mean the cleric spell list is obsolete? I roll all spells under the Magic-user. Their selection of spells determines what "class differentiation" they may desire. White magic vs black magic, if you will. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 14:53:13 GMT -6
As a Gray Mouser lover I often consider that every "Magic-User" is a "Thief" and the other way around. So I don't have a Thief class. I struggle with this. I see magic user and thief as totally different skillsets and Mouser (one of my all-time favorite literary characters, and a favorite of mine to play in RPGs) is unusual in that he has this desire to dabble in the dark arts even though he's not really a magic user. Mouser (to me) is a clear fighter-thief who just happens to have started out as an apprentice, and thinks he knows a lot more magic than he actually knows. I'm not sure how to equate that with a Gandalf type (who is, admittedly, an angel in Tolkien's mythology but seems like a traditional magic-user in the books) or Merlin or other spellcasters from literature. Seems like putting thief and wizard together all of the time emphasizes a "court charlatan" vibe and diminishes the magic-user class. I suppose I would have to ponder this further. You're not wrong in your reasoning and on your reading of the character classes. It was just the interpretation I have for my games. I guess that's a lot about the settings and the type of game each person like to run and to play. And maybe a little bit of assumptions we develop based on our favourite game rules. What I mean about the last is, it was a fun thing with my friend to watch movies or series and fit characters in D&D classes "oh this one is totally a Ranger"... But depending on which literature you want to base your games and your fun, you just can't use D&D rules for these assumptions. I don't see Gray Mouser as a Fighter at all. That's because he fights well? That's a "game assumption", if we start applying D&D rules and conceptions on things (characters), maybe we could see him that way. But who doesn't fight well on pulp fiction? (My reference) My understanding about a character as an "adventurer" and a character as a persona in the gaming world is also different. As I've mentioned, my interpretation of a Cleric is like a Crusader or Paladin. I can't see how a "priest" would be travelling and killing people. The same thing for the wizard concept. I can't see how a frail old (the kind of wizard depicted in some literatures) would be adventuring and throwing fireballs. A priest works nice as a NPC, as well as the Merlin concept (old and wise wizard). But not as a player character in my opinion. I just don't apply classes to NPCs and creatures, so I can just say to my players that someone is an Assassin without ever including the assassin class in my games. That's a lot about the settings and the type of adventure as well. I prefer a pulp adventure than a generic fantasy adventure. Sometimes you'll see characters that are good in some things and not on others, like someone that isn't good at fighting. But most of the times we want to play like the cool characters, and they just don't fit in D&D classes, at least not without multiclassing and multiple levels. I mean, I don't care if Gandalf is Maiar or whatever, I want to play a "Wizard" holding a sword just like him. Guess what, Wizard can't carry swords right? If I'm going to play a Cleric, I'm going to play like one of the many witch hunters or crusaders in literature. Wait, can't use edged weapons? Then I'll play a rogue. Someone that will hide in the shadows and then will take everyone down by surprise like Batman (Or just like both Fafhrd and Gray Mouser in the beginning of "Ill Met in Lankhmar"). But wait, the Thief doesn't fight that well? Ok, then I'll play someone like Gray Mouser. What do you mean the Wizard don't know how to fight? Or the Thief don't know how to Cast? Or the Fighter don't know anything else but fighting? It's just hard to play a pulp adventure using the D&D concept of a fantasy game. That's because it was a generic fantasy game since the beginning I guess, even though we have pulp fiction in Appendix N, the game wasn't designed for pulp adventure. (IMO of course) What about Conan? He's a d**n good thief. But he can't be a thief because he fights just too well to be a thief, he must be a Fighter. But then, how to make him nimble and skilled like the Thief that he is? That's when I agree with what Tetramorph and some other guys say: "You're all thieves." I've said this before as well. But why not: "You're all fighters." as well? Why the Thief or the Wizard have to be pathetic at fighting? They look nothing like the Wizards and Rogues of literature (pulp or not). Which Fighter can sword fight against Gandalf? Is Aragorn a more skilled fighter than Gandalf? Can we be sure? (And again, doesn't matter if he's a Maiar, I don't think Tolkien was thinking about character races or classes to justify fighting ability while telling those tales) We can argue about balancing the game/classes, and that's why D&D is this way, but again, we'll need to talk about genre, settings, tone... My last campaign was set in the Hyborian Age and I made everyone Thief as well, and the Magic-User was thought after Gray Mouser, they didn't received restriction on weapons or to hit bonus, they Hit like fighters. The difference was that Fighters could do multiple attacks, but I didn't punished the Magic-User Hit because... why would I? Gandalf and Gray Mouser, my two reference spellcasters, fight just nice. They hit like a Fighter. It's complex because maybe the Fighter was a soldier or mercenary and have years of practicing. But when they were creating the Thief class they didn't accounted for the guy kicking sand in the foe's eye, the tricks, the "dishonoured" way of fighting... the years surviving in the streets makes people though as well. What about the Ranger? Maybe he was not in the army barracks training like the Fighter class, but he was tracking wild animals, hunting boars, surviving Bears encounters, who said he doesn't know how to hit? What about the druid living in the wild, way more exposed to danger than the Ranger. So in my games not only "you're all thieves" but I'm just ok with the "you're all fighters" as well, I want the characters to fight well and to be able to live nice adventures, just like our references in pulp fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 6, 2022 23:14:02 GMT -6
So in my games not only "you're all thieves" but I'm just ok with the "you're all fighters" as well, I want the characters to fight well and to be able to live nice adventures, just like our references in pulp fiction. Great post. I need think more about this. |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jan 6, 2022 23:49:39 GMT -6
I have been toying with the idea of ditching the magic-user and just have fighter/cleric/thief trio for a historical fantasy game.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 7, 2022 0:14:20 GMT -6
What about ditching the fighter? Give MUs, Clerics, and Thieves the ability to fighter like fighters and use all weapons?
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 7, 2022 15:55:47 GMT -6
Every post on every D&D forum ever could end with ...in my game. Every statement in human history could also end with "from my perspective" or "that's at least how I see it. That would solve (could have solved) a lot of problems. I'm now imagining a mob boss. "If you don't pay for protection, I can't guarantee my friend Luigi would break your kneecaps while you're sleeping. At least that's how I see it." Yeah, the problem with writing. What is inferred and what needs to be spelled out? It gets exhausting to always say "I think", "in my opinion" and in the case of D&D "in my campaign." Besides, I was taught in creative writing class that it is bad writing. State your opinion clearly, the reader knows it is your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 7, 2022 21:55:51 GMT -6
Yeah, the problem with writing. What is inferred and what needs to be spelled out? It gets exhausting to always say "I think", "in my opinion" and in the case of D&D "in my campaign." Besides, I was taught in creative writing class that it is bad writing. State your opinion clearly, the reader knows it is your opinion. I totally agree. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 10, 2022 11:15:30 GMT -6
What about ditching the fighter? Then you move into the territory of a classless game. Just a big list of options for the player to create their own character. Might as well play GURPS. edit: oops, misread the post. thought he was advocating getting rid of all the classes but one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2022 11:31:22 GMT -6
My group just rolled chars for an impending 1e campaign. Builds were 4d6 drop the lowest... The party: 1/2 orc fighter/cleric elf thief human illusionist human fighter who aspires to be a bard. All male party. No one has psionics but they did roll for it.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2022 13:38:14 GMT -6
What about ditching the fighter? Give MUs, Clerics, and Thieves the ability to fighter like fighters and use all weapons? Then you move into the territory of a classless game. Just a big list of options for the player to create their own character. Might as well play GURPS. How does removing one class makes the game classless? Why you don't consider the same about removing the Cleric or the Thief?* The Fighter is the class with less options around. The only thing he does is to Fight. When you remove Clerics you do remove a lot of options. When you remove Thieves you do remove lots of options. But removing the Fighter, that have almost no option or "abilities", specially in the older editions, move the game in a classless territory? How? EDIT: * Not assuming you do or don't, it was a poor way of in fact, asking you a question about if you do. |
|
