|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 4, 2023 20:02:41 GMT -6
The third fundamental system could be something like 'society' or 'political' which would cover the fact that the cleric is essentially tied to some institution, but this is something that is more immediately relevant in the overworld, not in the underworld or in both like fighting and magic. I was thinking the other fundamental game system is the reaction/morale system. One could, plausibly, contrive a "leader" (perhaps controller, master?) class whose primary function is in this space. This would have the advantage of being broadly relevant in dungeon, wilderness, and town situations, but would likely require some reshaping of the reaction/morale systems to cope with workable advancements. With a bit more effort, I could then see the cleric being re-imagined as a sub-class of "master", in the same way rangers are a sub-class of fighters. Hmm. Let me think about that a minute... |
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Jan 4, 2023 20:59:38 GMT -6
An "influence-user" is intriguing, though that sounds more Sword & Society than Sword & Sorcery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Jan 4, 2023 21:27:20 GMT -6
Cleric could be renamed "Healer" and still have fighting and armor skills the same way a Fighter might be good at stealing stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 4, 2023 21:49:16 GMT -6
An "influence-user" is intriguing, though that sounds more Sword & Society than Sword & Sorcery. I was thinking: influencing a pack of orcs to join us or back down; influencing demorilised lackeys to fight on or perform better; influencing rats to follow, or undead to cower. That sort of thing. Not miles away from certain renderings of the bard I guess, minus a lute. Cleric could be renamed "Healer" and still have fighting and armor skills the same way a Fighter might be good at stealing stuff. I thought about that too, and there have been various "healer" classes written. The main issue for me is that healing is a reactionary thing that happens after the main action. Whereas most players generally want to be leading the action, not tidying up after. IMHO this makes healing better suited to an NPC function. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jan 5, 2023 0:26:57 GMT -6
I haven't put it into practice yet since in my latest game, no one felt like playing one, but I've actually been tinkering with the cleric as an experiment lately.
Currently the direction I'm going is that lawful ones are saints and chaotic ones are warlocks (we've never really used level titles so it doesn't step on the wizard's toes at all). There's also some inspiration from the AD&D Oriental Adventures version of the cleric, the shukenja, which is limited to light/medium armor and has some alternative exorcism and sanctification abilities instead of turning undead, as well as new spells with more "social" effects such as Beneficence, Calm, and Enthrall. Also ditching Wisdom and making Charisma their prime requisite, which does double-duty by removing the overlap between Intelligence and Wisdom while also bringing Charisma more in line with its historical meaning of divinely-gifted grace or favor.
As a final note, much as historical saints were not necessarily clergy, many being members of non-ordained religious orders or even laypeople, this class has no requirement of being a formal part of any religious hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 5, 2023 0:57:54 GMT -6
some inspiration from ... the shukenja ... Also ditching Wisdom and making Charisma their prime requisite... Noice  bringing Charisma more in line with its historical meaning of divinely-gifted grace or favor. What does "its historical meaning" refer to? As a final note, much as historical saints were not necessarily clergy, many being members of non-ordained religious orders or even laypeople, this class has no requirement of being a formal part of any religious hierarchy. Great observation! |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jan 5, 2023 1:34:57 GMT -6
bringing Charisma more in line with its historical meaning of divinely-gifted grace or favor. What does "its historical meaning" refer to? Historical as in, the word charisma in modern English usage almost exclusively refers to having a certain charm or je ne sais quoi, whereas starting from the Greek Bible (the term originates in ancient Greek) up to the early 20th century it referred to something divinely-granted or supernatural. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 5, 2023 4:16:34 GMT -6
Before the 14th century, there were basically no "halls" or "colleges" formed at English unis, just individual teaching masters in their own lodgings. To be a student meant your name was inscribed on the roll of one master, and this meant you attended his lectures, but outside of that you lived on your own and had little restriction, which would work for an adventurer. University of Bologna founded in 1180AD University of Oxford founded 1200AD (you could say it started even earlier as a college in 1096) Cambridge 1209AD I could list several more pre 14th century. The West has a long and distinguished history of centers of learning inspired by Churches and Monastaries, which is why modern science sprung from the West. |
|
|
|
Post by plethon on Jan 5, 2023 13:32:51 GMT -6
Before the 14th century, there were basically no "halls" or "colleges" formed at English unis, just individual teaching masters in their own lodgings. To be a student meant your name was inscribed on the roll of one master, and this meant you attended his lectures, but outside of that you lived on your own and had little restriction, which would work for an adventurer. University of Bologna founded in 1180AD University of Oxford founded 1200AD (you could say it started even earlier as a college in 1096) Cambridge 1209AD I could list several more pre 14th century. The West has a long and distinguished history of centers of learning inspired by Churches and Monastaries, which is why modern science sprung from the West. Oxford and Cambridge Universities existed for centuries before any halls or colleges were formed/endowed. The terms 'Hall' and 'College' do not = University in this case, they are specific terms. There were a few early halls and colleges in the 13th century but it would be a while before the majority of undergraduates were in that system. Before this, teachers of the university taught as I have explained above. The University of Oxford today is made up of many Colleges, and some of the old Halls even still exist. I recommend Alan Cobban's books on the subject of the English Universities in the medieval period. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 5, 2023 17:56:20 GMT -6
just individual teaching masters in their own lodgings. Was the line I was taking issue with. It is inaccurate. |
|
|
|
Post by plethon on Jan 5, 2023 19:49:32 GMT -6
just individual teaching masters in their own lodgings. Was the line I was taking issue with. It is inaccurate. In what way is it inaccurate? By individual, I didn't mean to imply they weren't affiliated with the University, just that they were, in the beginning, in the English Universities, not organized into colleges, they were directly under the university and handled admission of students on an individual basis. There were also no halls, so students and teachers lived in their own lodgings. It wasn't until later that living in a hall or college became mandatory for undergraduates. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jan 5, 2023 20:15:38 GMT -6
Here's a ponder on clerics.
I like Finarvyn's 15-year-old description at the beginning of this thread of the cleric as a new class designed specifically to counter undead monsters.
Later we get the thief, which is clearly introduced to counter various dungeon dangers.
I suppose you could say rangers were designed to counter humanoid encounters, but they don't quite have the same slam dunk over their territory that clerics & thieves do.
So in a way, part of the reason why people locked in on the cleric & the thief was because they contributed a broad neutralizer to a specific category of problem D&D parties frequently encounter. I don't know if you can say that for any other post-Chainmail class, they all just sort of mediate the niches established by the now-classic Big Four.
So what if new classes had been designed with that in mind? Instead of "Hey, these players want to be a monk, let's decide what monks do," it's "What category of problem isn't already countered by a class? Let's make a class that does that."
With that sort of thinking in mind I don't really mind clerics or thieves. Though I admit that it works best if players are limited to one "secret weapon" character in their stable, or if everyone overloads on the niche classes leaving holes in their ability to counter more frequently encountered problems that good old melee & magic solve. It's having a balanced Fellowship Mix in every party that causes play to feel a bit samey after a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 5, 2023 20:56:55 GMT -6
Was the line I was taking issue with. It is inaccurate. In what way is it inaccurate? By individual, I didn't mean to imply they weren't affiliated with the University, just that they were, in the beginning, in the English Universities, not organized into colleges, they were directly under the university and handled admission of students on an individual basis. There were also no halls, so students and teachers lived in their own lodgings. It wasn't until later that living in a hall or college became mandatory for undergraduates. There were bodies of students being taught by a teacher. It wasn't all individual student-teacher relationship. |
|
|
|
Post by plethon on Jan 5, 2023 21:14:21 GMT -6
In what way is it inaccurate? By individual, I didn't mean to imply they weren't affiliated with the University, just that they were, in the beginning, in the English Universities, not organized into colleges, they were directly under the university and handled admission of students on an individual basis. There were also no halls, so students and teachers lived in their own lodgings. It wasn't until later that living in a hall or college became mandatory for undergraduates. There were bodies of students being taught by a teacher. It wasn't all individual student-teacher relationship. Yes, that's true, a teacher would usually have a group of students on his roll all attending his lectures. Becoming an official student meant having any one teacher inscribe your name on their roll, so the student went directly to the teacher who went directly to the University council. Over time, various intermediary apparatuses emerged, eventually leading to centralized matriculation, mandatory residence in halls, endowment of colleges. But the act of teaching at the town which would eventually be called Oxford predates all of this by centuries. |
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Jan 7, 2023 12:38:25 GMT -6
I'm now very curious to see the Master and Student NPC classes plethon and tdenmark come up with, each with their special abilities by level, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by dukeofchutney on Jan 20, 2023 2:27:25 GMT -6
There has been a few posts on clerics in this thread and others and I know a few people remove the cleric from their game. I want to try argue that the Cleric is the most important of the original three... It has occurred to me whilst reading some of the modern class less games (Into the Odd, Knave derivatives) that these games struggle to communicate their setting, their fantasy, through the rule sets. One reason for this is the loss of the classes that actually tell the reader about the designers campaign. The fighting man and the wizard say a lot less about Gary and Dave's campaigns than the Cleric does. The Cleric shows us that the OD&D fantasy included a pseudo medieval Catholicism, that the gods were active, that the undead were a major threat and that wisdom, a cultural knowledge, was considered more apt that intellect for engaging with religion in that world. It shows us that the crusade against chaotic forces was as much in the game as neutral plunderers getting gold. This all adds a lot of detail to the Gygaxian fantasy. These days the Gygaxian fantasy is so embedded in our culture that it seems wrote and dull but in the 1970s it would have been pretty weird and original, this merger of the pulps, Tolkien and warrior monks.
I don't think a game should necessary have the Cleric but it should have classes that say something about the campaign world, about your fantasy. Fighters, magic users and thieves don't say that much about your world beyond the existence of conflict, crime and magic. A good class, like a good magic items list does a lot more than any lore or faction history to communicate the vibe and society of the game world. A good example of this is Jeff T's Hyperborea RPG. Some of the classes there are just mods of the AD&D classes under more pulpy names but some like the Legerdemainist, the Shaman and the Berserker set out the flavour of the game world.
|
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Jan 22, 2023 6:36:59 GMT -6
Great post dukeofchutney. As a fan of the cleric I like what you’re saying. I love Jeff and what he did with Hyperborea, but the one thing I am not a fan of is there are so many classes. Gary got the flavor of his game across with three classes! I really like 1e and that’s got my (pretty much max of 8 classes - no evil characters, so I don’t really count the assassin or monk  ) So I dig what you are saying, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jan 22, 2023 11:58:51 GMT -6
Bards? *ducks*
|
|
|
|
Post by dukeofchutney on Jan 23, 2023 4:55:08 GMT -6
I agree you can have to many and Hyperborea probably does. I tend to think 3-6 is probably the sweat spot. Enough to give the players some choice and flesh out the setting but not enough to dilute the ideas or leave the players paralysed with indecision.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 26, 2023 16:07:21 GMT -6
The Dragon #5 “Witchcraft Supplement” was a monster write-up, but so extensive that it seemed to cry out for being turned into a character class (as had been done with the Druid). In #20, a follow up article did just that.
The original magazine version of the Bard was fairly called “overpowered.” The 1E AD&D version is a lot less so, if at all — in case you ever roll the stats to get one in the first place!
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Feb 17, 2023 19:12:58 GMT -6
From this perspective, perhaps "crusader" would have been better? Then crusaders could crusade (in the same manner that fighters fight) without being limited to a very specific types of individuals (e.g., catholic-esque clerics). Players and refs could then fit the crusader class around all manner of imagined/invented "crusades" that wouldn't necessarily have to be analogs of the real-world, historical crusades (although they could be). Depending on the "crusade" this could push the need for details of Gods etc. back a bit. Admittedly, you'd still need details of the "crusade", but this would ideally be a more immediate/relevant world building tool than a distant pantheon of deities. I agree the term Crusader does work the best within that line of thought. And it sounds cool and "D&D" enough. Though there is some associated historical baggage unpopular in our modern age. All the names associated with it have a ring to them. Paladin, Templar, Crusader, Knight. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Feb 17, 2023 19:15:32 GMT -6
I think that it's interesting to look at the evolution of character classes as the D&D game evolved, and the fact that most of the key pieces were in place by the end of 1976. We begin with a proto-D&D and find only two classes. Chainmail
Fighting Man (1971)
Magic-user / Wizard (1971) At this point, the level system was very crude. Fighting Men were one of three types: Man = level 1 Hero = level 4 Super Hero = level 8 Magic-users were one of five types: Seer = 1 spell Magician = 3 spells Warlock = 4 spells Sorcerer = 5 spells Wizard = 6-7 spells One of Finarvyn's best posts here. It is remarkable how close to classes and levels Chainmail was in 1971. Just took a little nudge by Arneson to get it there. I go back and forth between the minimalism of Fighter and Magic-User being perfect, and how fun the endless myriad of sub-classes are. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 17, 2023 20:09:18 GMT -6
IIRC, CM 1st Ed 1971 had only Wizards, Sorcs (Wizard -1) and Warlocks (Wizard -2).
CM 2nd Ed added Magicians (Wizard -3) in 1972.
Then along came D&D in 1974.
Then CM 3rd Ed added Seers (Wizard -4) and the spell complexity table, in 1975.
|
|
) So I dig what you are saying, thank you. 
