|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 18, 2007 12:36:40 GMT -6
So, which classes would you vote "off the island" and why? I've been thinking quite a bit about the character classes that were introduced and that gained wide currency before the release of AD&D. Even though I plan only to use the three classes from the LBBs, should the game last long enough, I am sure either my players or I will feel some need to include other classes (or maybe we won't but I figured it's best to plan ahead). I've also been thinking about the notion of classes as archetypes rather than professions and I think D&D -- any version -- is at its strongest when we think of classes in this way.
With that in mind, here's my run-down:
1. Fighting Man, Magic-User, and Cleric: Keep, obviously.
2. Thief: I am coming round powerfully to the notion that this class is the thin end of a very large wedge and should be eliminated. Even leaving aside the issue of the thief's de facto skill system (which is a BIG issue), the fact is that, for me, thieving is something you do; it's not who you are. Conan was frequently a thief but he wasn't a Thief. So, gone.
3. Paladin: I would keep the paladin, probably with some small changes, most notably the elimination of the Charisma requirement, as I think it shifts the focus too much toward ability scores and away from the class itself.
4. Assassin: See Thief. Gone.
5. Monk: The monk as written is not a traditional fantasy archetype for me. The notion of a martial ascetic, however, does have a long pedigree and might be suitable in some settings. I'd be inclined to keep the class around as an option but would rarely, if ever, use it myself.
6. Druid: I'd keep this. In a game where clerics, as written, must choose between Law or Chaos after a certain point, the option for a Neutral "cleric" makes good sense and wise man/shaman who communes with nature, etc. is a powerful archetype.
7. Bard: Unless it were re-written, I'd get rid of this class. The bard is too schizophrenic and lacks a strong archetypal core. He could be reworked into many different related classes but, as of now, he's too disjointed and unclear to be a solid archetype.
8. Ranger: Very tough call. On the one hand, I like the idea of rangers, perhaps because I was always very fond of Aragorn from Tolkien. On the other, he has some of the Thief's problems: his greatest claims to fame are things that I think characters of most classes (especially fighting men, elves, and halflings) might be able to do, if their background makes it plausible. So, I'm torn. I'd give rangers a tentative thumbs down.
9. Illusionist: Gone. A separate spell list is not sufficient basis for a new character class. Likewise, the illusionist sets a bad precedent for later violence inflicted upon the magic-user class and I'll have none of that.
That mostly covers it, I think.
|
|
wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126
|
Post by wulfgar on Dec 18, 2007 13:00:20 GMT -6
Any consideration to a barbarian of some sort?
Two simple suggestions that I've seen around here that I like are:
A) Make as fighting man but use the Berserker rules: +2 hit against mansize humanoids but can only wear leather armor
or
B)Make as fighting man but get max HP at every level, but can not wear any armor.
Lots of other variations out there as well.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 18, 2007 13:13:45 GMT -6
Any consideration to a barbarian of some sort? Barbarians are a bit like the ranger for me, further complicated by the fact that (so far as I know) there was no OD&D barbarian class, so that automatically puts them under suspicion for my purposes. What I mean is that, like the ranger, most of the hallmarks of a putative barbarian class are just outdoorsy abilities I'd let several classes try their hands at rather than anything unique to the archetype of the Barbarian. Now, were I to create a barbarian class, I'd have to think about the core of his archetype, which for me isn't simply his outdoorsy-ness or even his toughness (which is probably a consequence of the former) but rather his being an outsider to Civilization. What exactly that means mechanically I'm not sure and I fear that defining it would probably be very campaign specific* and thus further undercut the class's utility. *For myself, I'd probably make a connection between barbarians and Chaos (but not necessarily evil) but that's based on my unique take on Law vs. Chaos and how it could play out.
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Dec 18, 2007 13:18:55 GMT -6
So, which classes would you vote "off the island" and why? I've been thinking quite a bit about the character classes that were introduced and that gained wide currency before the release of AD&D. Even though I plan only to use the three classes from the LBBs, should the game last long enough, I am sure either my players or I will feel some need to include other classes (or maybe we won't but I figured it's best to plan ahead). I've also been thinking about the notion of classes as archetypes rather than professions and I think D&D -- any version -- is at its strongest when we think of classes in this way. With that in mind, here's my run-down: 1. Fighting Man, Magic-User, and Cleric: Keep, obviously. 2. Thief: I am coming round powerfully to the notion that this class is the thin end of a very large wedge and should be eliminated. Even leaving aside the issue of the thief's de facto skill system (which is a BIG issue), the fact is that, for me, thieving is something you do; it's not who you are. Conan was frequently a thief but he wasn't a Thief. So, gone. 3. Paladin: I would keep the paladin, probably with some small changes, most notably the elimination of the Charisma requirement, as I think it shifts the focus too much toward ability scores and away from the class itself. 4. Assassin: See Thief. Gone. 5. Monk: The monk as written is not a traditional fantasy archetype for me. The notion of a martial ascetic, however, does have a long pedigree and might be suitable in some settings. I'd be inclined to keep the class around as an option but would rarely, if ever, use it myself. 6. Druid: I'd keep this. In a game where clerics, as written, must choose between Law or Chaos after a certain point, the option for a Neutral "cleric" makes good sense and wise man/shaman who communes with nature, etc. is a powerful archetype. 7. Bard: Unless it were re-written, I'd get rid of this class. The bard is too schizophrenic and lacks a strong archetypal core. He could be reworked into many different related classes but, as of now, he's too disjointed and unclear to be a solid archetype. 8. Ranger: Very tough call. On the one hand, I like the idea of rangers, perhaps because I was always very fond of Aragorn from Tolkien. On the other, he has some of the Thief's problems: his greatest claims to fame are things that I think characters of most classes (especially fighting men, elves, and halflings) might be able to do, if their background makes it plausible. So, I'm torn. I'd give rangers a tentative thumbs down. 9. Illusionist: Gone. A separate spell list is not sufficient basis for a new character class. Likewise, the illusionist sets a bad precedent for later violence inflicted upon the magic-user class and I'll have none of that. That mostly covers it, I think. Neat topic. Except that I don't watch 'reality shows'. :P Still, I'll play. 1. Trifecta: Obviously keep, as you say. 2. Thief: Also just as you say, I would ditch the Thief. I think that a Fighting Man should be able to sneak in light or no armor, should be able to hide if there is a place to hide, should be able to climb if he has the physical potential and there are handholds or rope, etc. An OD&D "Thief" for me is just a Fighting Man who wears little or no armor and has a good enough Str and Dex to handle the appropriate attribute checks. He could don heavy armor if he wanted to and could afford it (of course I make Plate 10 times as expensive as normal... otherwise very few people cannot afford it). Maybe he would not don heavy armor even if he could - it does have some disadvantages. Anyway, the "Scout" abilities ought already to be the province of the Fighting Man. As for the technical abilities: Pick Pocket and Open Locks, etc. (the larceny and "boxman" type stuff), those can be the province of technical experts, or Fighting Men who include it in their background (of course, if your background was as a pickpocket then you weren't a boxman or a mercenary or a watch officer, etc. - the background has to be limited and make sense). 3. Paladin: The Paladin is not a class generally fitting for the milieus that I tend to run. I would only use him in a Judeo-Christian setting. My D&D tends to be further removed in space and time. So, no Paladins. 4. Assassin: Also gone. As per the Thief, but kills rather than steals. 5. Monk: Also gone. Doesn't really fit with my fantasy games. "You know, walk the earth, meet people... get into adventures. Like Caine from "Kung Fu."" Or not. 6. Druid: Gone! I like my stuff a bit more polarized. If I'm doing nature worshippers, they'll be more like the Pagans from Thief: The Dark Project (very cool computer game). So, just Chaotic clerics. 7. Bard: Blech! Gone! Don't sing at the monster, stab the monster. 8. Ranger: Here's a class I like. But also gone! It doesn't do anything significant that a Fighting Man with the appropriate pedigree couldn't do. 9. Illusionist: Gone. This is just a Magic-User who casts Phantasmal Forces a lot, and perhaps has a flamboyant personality. Wow. That's everybody except the original three. Guess I'm a hard-nose. :)
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 18, 2007 13:24:13 GMT -6
Wow. That's everybody except the original three. Guess I'm a hard-nose. Nothing wrong with that. There are no right or wrong answers here. Mostly, I'm curious to find out where people stand on this question and why.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 18, 2007 13:30:19 GMT -6
The idea of classes as archetypes is something I've been thinking about as a result of many recent discussions. Some of my thinking runs in parallel with some of the rest of you, but it also diverges. Here's my thinking: - Fighters: certainly make sense
- Clerics: also makes sense
- Magic-users: also makes sense, but because I like a variety of magic and magical themes, I am retaining illusionists, and may add other sub-classes, such as alchemists.
- Thieves: I actually find the Thief archetype to be an appropriate one and I'm not so bothered by it as others are. (This might bear some further writing, but not right here)
- Paladins: I like the idea of paladins, but I also think it is a status to which one aspires, so I wouldn't let characters start off as paladins.
- Rangers, Scouts, and the ilk: this is a thorny problem. I'm also influenced by Tolkien, so the idea of Rangers is interesting. But it is also so tied into Middle-Earth that I have to think a bit more about whether or not it really translates well into other settings. Having seen a Scout class (which seems to combine Rangers and Thieves), I'm still thinking about what I am trying to represent with this sub-class.
- Monks: I've always tended to object to Monks as a class, simply because they are so clearly grabbed from a different milieu ("kung fu" movies and the like), and so I've wondered if there is a good "fit" for them in a more European-like fantasy setting. (This also suggests that if you vary the cultures in your campaign from that Euro-centric assumption, you get different answers about what fits and what doesn't.)
- Assassins: I think this is where I notice that "thin wedge" falling squarely on my toes (to mix my metaphors). Never really liked them, and felt as though they were simply too unbalancing and not what I felt was heroic in fantasy.
- Bards. They need to be re-worked. I might take a stab at this and see what comes out.
- Druids. I like the concept, but I find myself looking for some other kind of name or identifier for this class. Druids, like monks, are more culturally specific than we really let on, so while I like the outlook of the class, their name and cultural underpinnings need work (see Monk for similar thoughts).
- And there may be other sub-classes or classes I'd want to include, such as the Houri and the Beastmaster, but in either of those cases, actual examples would be fairly rare.
More to follow, as I'm still working things out. I will note that I looked at the last list of classes I allowed in a D&D game, and tossed a bunch of them out, including Merchants and Detectives (both written up in White Dwarf, when more and more classes seemed like the thing to do). This is a good discussion; what do others think?
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 18, 2007 13:32:02 GMT -6
Barbarians are a bit like the ranger for me, further complicated by the fact that (so far as I know) there was no OD&D barbarian class Not quite true; there was a Barbarian character class that appeared in White Dwarf, and then was considerably modified for AD&D a short while afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 18, 2007 13:34:03 GMT -6
Not quite true; there was a Barbarian character class that appeared in White Dwarf, and then was considerably modified for AD&D a short while afterwards. Do you remember anything about it? What was it like?
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 18, 2007 14:10:52 GMT -6
[/li][li] Bards. They need to be re-worked. I might take a stab at this and see what comes out.[/quote] I'd like to see what you come up with. I like Bards, but I've never played the Bard from the SR so I don't know how unbalanced or schizophrenic it really is.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 18, 2007 14:19:26 GMT -6
Not a single definitive answer, I know, but just some thoughts off of the top of my head....
It always seemed to me (but as far as I know was never actually stated anywhere) that the main purpose for the cleric was to chase off undead kind of like in The Omen or other horror movies. Since I don't use an abundance of undead in most of my campaigns, the cleric becomses something similar to a fighter-wizard with a slighly different spell list (healing, etc). From that perspective, I might be tempted to vote the cleric (of the "big four") off of the island.
If you want to include all classes and sub-classes instead of the main 4, then I wouldn't get rid of one of the main 4 but a sub-class. I might lean towards the Illusionist as being the least useful. Or, since we're keeping the Cleric, one could get rid of the Paladin since he's just a fighter-cleric anyway.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Dec 18, 2007 14:20:56 GMT -6
See, I think it's okay to have all these neat classes, as the requirements for them are so stringent (except thieves) that you won't have many of them. Except everybody then wants to play one, and so they start to complain about their attribute rolls. Then you get attribute creep and it all goes to Hell. So if you have players that are willing to accept that maybe one out of every 30 characters might be good enough for a sub-class, you are okay. But it doesn't seem likely
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Dec 18, 2007 15:14:04 GMT -6
My thoughts:
Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleris: in
Thief: in (but only for humans and halflings, and halflings have a level limit and don't multi-class). I am open to ideas for eliminating the thief but having started with Holmes Basic, it's been a part of D&D my entire gaming life
Paladin: in, though I've got to re-think, it may not really fit what I'm doing
Assasin: out, doesn't fit
Monk: out, I've always thought WTF about this class...
Druid, Ranger: out, I don't see a place for these in a mega-dungeon campaign
Bard: out, also doesn't seem to fit a mega-dungeon, and good points above about the archetype
Illusionist: illusions have always been tricky to run, someone always wants to create an illusory dragon as a 1st level character... No need to have a class that's all about illusions.
Barbarian: I would be open to a good light armor fighter class, though I'm not sure how well it would fit the megadungeon concept.
Frank
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Dec 18, 2007 15:28:56 GMT -6
I might also add that, in certain circumstances, I would be willing to drop the Cleric. Especially in something like a Zothique game.
If the Cleric is there to provide healing and chase away undead... well, chasing away undead isn't necessary, because you can always destroy them with sword and spell (and that's more fun anyways). If you want to have magical healing (I know I would keep it in), you can always just give it to the Magic-User.
One thing I thought up while pondering running a B/X Zothique game was to give the Magic-User a power called "Channeling". He can 'forget' any memorized spell to Channel its power into healing: roll 1d6 of healing for each level of the spell (so he drops a knock spell and can cast a 2d6 cure, etc.). Makes the Magic-User very flexible.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 18, 2007 15:35:35 GMT -6
I might also add that, in certain circumstances, I would be willing to drop the Cleric. Especially in something like a Zothique game. I'm open to the notion of dropping the cleric too, especially in certain kinds of fantasy. It's the topic for a whole 'nother thread, but there aren't many pulp fantasy analogs of the cleric. Likewise, the entire class reeks of meta-game considerations, just as the thief does. However, not only is tradition is on the cleric's side (which alone is not sufficient, as the thief is pretty traditional too) but its abilities do not do violence to other elements of the game in the same way that the thief's do so. That is, whether a cleric is appropriately archetypal or not is ultimately a matter of taste, but if one does decide in favor of the cleric, for whatever reason, you can at least be assured that its abilities are both distinct and don't open the door to the violence thief skills inflicted upon the game. That's my take on it anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2007 16:29:00 GMT -6
1. Fighting Man: RETAIN 2. * Magic-User: See below 3. * Cleric: See below 4. Thief: I like the thief, so I'll RETAIN 'em. 5. Paladin: RP a Fighting-Man this way. DROP. 6. Assassin: They seem rather superfluous to me. DROP. 7. Monk: A touch of the exotic east? RETAIN. 8. * Druid: See Below 9. Bard: Once again, superfluous. DROP. 10. Ranger: See Paladin11. Illusionist: I've never cared for "Specialists". DROP. *I like korgoth's latter suggestion regarding Clerics & Magic-Users. I've always flirted with the notion of combining these (2) classes (+ the Druid) together into a single "Spellcaster" class. I suppose the way I would do it is to keep all the mechanics of the MU, add the Cleric & Driud's spell lists & special abilities, & then get down to all the things that this now "uber" class CAN'T do. Like maybe the "Spellcaster" has to earn double the listed XP to advance levels, is forbidden to use ANY type of armor or weapon, slowly loses their Constitution & sanity, etc.--I don't know. I could never figure out the right balance I was comfortable with, so I 've never done it. Maybe in the next campaign I run I'll sit down & really flesh it out... Fun topic though, jamesm.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 19, 2007 10:33:23 GMT -6
Not quite true; there was a Barbarian character class that appeared in White Dwarf, and then was considerably modified for AD&D a short while afterwards. Do you remember anything about it? What was it like? Um, lemme dig it out and post something back about it. I think Brian Asbury designed the class, but I am not sure.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 19, 2007 10:35:25 GMT -6
[/li][li] Bards. They need to be re-worked. I might take a stab at this and see what comes out.[/quote] I'd like to see what you come up with. I like Bards, but I've never played the Bard from the SR so I don't know how unbalanced or schizophrenic it really is.[/quote] [glow=red,2,300]Very, very unbalanced[/glow] - in a good way, of course. Essentially all fighter, half-MU, half-thief and bard abilities on top of it. No wonder they wanted to fix it in AD&D and later. Never did get it right because of the mish-mash of milieux in the make-up of the class.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 19, 2007 11:58:33 GMT -6
Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric: KEEP Thief: KEEP as NPCs and secondary characters; strongly discouraged as a PC class Paladin: KEEP as "prestige class" for lawful fighters with high Charisma (which is assumed to have been gained through play rather than starting out by rolling 17+ on 3d6 -- undecided what would happen if someone actually rolled 17+ Cha and wanted to start the game as a paladin) Ranger: tough call, undecided but leaning towards DROP (a re-worked "prestige class" ranger more along the lines of the paladin might be more acceptable) Illusionist: KEEP as primarily NPC class, possibly with mandatory Chaotic alignment (theoretically I suppose I'd allow a PC to be one if the player really wanted to, but the stringent stat requirements and steep XP curve are likely enough to keep PCs away) Monk: DROP, unless a player really really really wants to play one Assassin: DROP as a PC class; possibly used for NPCs? Bard: DROP as-written; I like the idea of the class but would want to re-write it almost from the ground up before I'd allow it in a game Druid: Another one that I like the idea of -- a neutral "cleric" whose more primitive; more of a shaman or witch-doctor type -- but don't think the class as-written really captures that (perhaps because I'm spoiled by the AD&D druid, which has a very different and distinct feel tied (IMO) specifically to the World of Greyhawk setting); strong lean towards DROP
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Dec 19, 2007 12:27:16 GMT -6
Brian Asbury was the designer of the White Dwarf Barbarian class. It appeared in White Dwarf #4 and The Best of White Dwarf Articles #1. It was updated for AD&D in White Dwarf #12.
Foster: I'd be interested in what a prestige ranger ala paladin would look like.
Things I would like to see added, but with care would be more class options for non-humans, but I'm not sure what. Perhaps a cleric type at least for dwarves (though perhaps the dwarven paladin which some have pointed out isn't exactly not allowed would handle the need for a dwarven man of faith - without spells.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Dec 19, 2007 16:42:59 GMT -6
I like fosters use of the "NPC class" distinction; some of these are concepts I like and would use, but not really for PCs. Also, I don't really see the need for a full-blown class progression if you're using these only for NPCs. Still, they're useful as a guideline (my inclination is to just assign powers and spells as appropriate to get the NPC/monster I'm looking for).
I also like the idea of the Paladin as a sort of "prestige class." The original presentation of the "prestige class" was a nice concept, IMO. That is, tightly bound to a campaign organization/background of some sort (and thus inherently limited) -- not just another crunchy option that anyone can use to "improve" their PC's numbers.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 19, 2007 16:58:25 GMT -6
I like fosters use of the "NPC class" distinction; Maybe I'm forever scarred by memories of my youth when "NPC class" was a term used to get all manner of overpowered and goofy classes into the campaign through the back door. Once there, it was only a matter of time before people would demand to play ninjas and anti-paladins and so forth. My own feeling is that, while PCs are different from "normal men," those NPCs who are of the heroic mold should follow the same rules as the PCs, more or less. It's a personal quirk, I admit, but I don't like the idea of NPC classes. That said, I do like the idea of a "prestige" paladin. I believe the Mentzer version of D&D created such a thing. After a certain level, a fighter who didn't settle down to rule a barony could instead pledge fealty to a Lawful church and gain the ability to cast spells and turn undead at one-third his level provided he met certain ability score requirements. The new paladin was then bound by certain strictures regarding wealth, possessions, and his companions too. I thought it was a nice, simple way to do the paladin concept justice without creating a whole new class.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Dec 19, 2007 17:01:09 GMT -6
I would keep the original Holy Quartet of FIGHTING MAN, CLERIC, MAGIC USER, and THIEF. THe one change that I would make (for my own campaigns at least) is that the MAGIC USER must be of Chaotic alignment and rarely available as a PC, to reflect his dark leanings and willingness to consort with sinister realms to gain his power.
ASSASSIN: In my game, this remains an important class and is significantly different from the Thief not only numbers-wise, but also socially and in terms of his placement in society and the campaign as a whole.
RANGER: I've aways liked the idea of the rugged individualist who can survive alone in the wilds and hold his own against tribes of monstrous humanoids, but in my games the Ranger has significant penalties when trying to interact with civilized folk or within a town/city setting.
PALADIN: I might keep the Paladin for my game, but it would be strictly different than the knight in shining armor stereotype. My Paladin class would be more of a witch-hunter.
ILLUSIONIST: Too many people try to take advantage of the spells. I would simply give the Magic User some illusion spells and dump the seperate class as unneeded baggage.
MONK: A cool idea, to be sure, but it just doesn't jive with my concept of what OD&D should be. I'd allow for other classes to have limited access to unarmed fighting styles for a price, but anything more than 1d8 for bare-handed damage is silly.
DRUID: Again, it doesn't fit with my concept of fantasy. The only real Druid that I recall from a fantasy novel is Allanon from the Shannera books, and he is more of a Keeper-of-Forbidden-Knowledge than an actual spell-lobbing tree hugger.
BARD: You're kidding me, right?
Doc
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 19, 2007 17:06:33 GMT -6
THe one change that I would make (for my own campaigns at least) is that the MAGIC USER must be of Chaotic alignment and rarely available as a PC, to reflect his dark leanings and willingness to consort with sinister realms to gain his power. I rather like this myself, but then it's not only very much in line with pulp fantasy conventions, but it's also consonant with my take on the whole Law vs. Chaos question. I'm sorely tempted to go this route sometime.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Dec 19, 2007 17:12:30 GMT -6
My own feeling is that, while PCs are different from "normal men," those NPCs who are of the heroic mold should follow the same rules as the PCs, more or less. Why is that? I'm not "throwing down the gauntlet," I'm just interested in your thinking on this. For my part, I don't subscribe to the "monsters/NPCs should follow the same rules as PCs" school-of-thought. I see the PC classes as rules for long-term character advancement within a given archetype. NPCs and monsters usually simply don't need this kind of structure, IMO; they're usually short-term, and have a specific purpose to serve. I have no problem assigning a 0-level NPC spell-casting abilities, for example, or assigning a 0-level barkeeper the ability to attack as a 3rd level fighter when using throwing knives. Similarly, I see no problem with an NPC magic-user/specialist (e.g. an Illusionist) that does things differently from PC magic-users. Or a dwarvish priest that has the ability to bless and lay-on-hands, without being a member of an established class like a cleric or a paladin. Or even a heroic NPC who is the pure-blooded descendant of an ancient line of exiled kings, and has special powers and background (i.e. a ranger).
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 19, 2007 17:18:45 GMT -6
Why is that? I'm not "throwing down the gauntlet," I'm just interested in your thinking on this. It's probably the remaining systematic part of my brain still demanding its due. In a game with classes and where classes are strongly tied to archetypes, I like to be consistent even when NPCs are involved. Likewise, I've had long, hard experiences with lots of players who look for any signs of "arbitrariness" in the way I construct my world and building NPCs not merely according to different rules but with different classes is probably just asking for trouble. I'm not dogmatic on the issue; it's a personal preference thing. In general, I prefer to divide my characters into Normal Men and "heroes" and heroes, regardless of whether they're PCs or not, follow similar rules.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 19, 2007 17:55:28 GMT -6
I'm not dogmatic on the issue; it's a personal preference thing. In general, I prefer to divide my characters into Normal Men and "heroes" and heroes, regardless of whether they're PCs or not, follow similar rules. Yes, yes, and yes. I don't see a divide between player-characters and non-player-characters. They are all people, and some of them (either PCs or NPCs) may become heroes.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 19, 2007 20:52:46 GMT -6
In a game with classes and where classes are strongly tied to archetypes, I like to be consistent even when NPCs are involved. Likewise, I've had long, hard experiences with lots of players who look for any signs of "arbitrariness" in the way I construct my world and building NPCs not merely according to different rules but with different classes is probably just asking for trouble. If I understand you correctly, your thinking is that PCs and NPCs should all operate under the same rules in the interest of fairness? Basically, I agree. If a PC sees an interesting NPC class, he or she might want to play it and I hate to say "well, it's really neat but you can't be one." Just seems wrong to me somehow. That's part of what always seemed odd to me about the large number of "NPC classes" that used to appear in Dragon magazine -- if it's so cool let a player try one, but if it's too unbalanced then keep it out of the game. If I didn't understand your point correctly, ignore all that I've said here. ;D
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 20, 2007 2:51:26 GMT -6
I forget where I found this, but it seems relevant at this point:
In TD 3 appeared an article called "A Plethora of Obscure Sub-Classes" (Healer, Scribe, Samurai, Berserker, Idiot, Jester). Here, in a note, Tim Kask the editor states that "I feel that the purpose of THE DRAGON is to provide new ideas and variants, and have printed in the past and will probably print in the future things that I wouldn’t let in my own campaign; a great deal of them are superflous and better handled by the DM. Be that as it may, I would like to urge caution and discretion in allowing the proliferation of weird sub-classes. All too often, they only make it harder for the DM, and are often too powerful to use as player-characters. In the last TD, the alchemist was intended to be recommended as a non-player character, as are many of these."
I bolded the bit I think particularly relevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Dec 20, 2007 5:23:31 GMT -6
I think it's unfortunate that some of these concepts were presented as "classes" at all; that seems to be where a lot of the (misplaced, IMO) concern for fairness/balance comes from -- "hey, it's a class, so why can't the players be this/do this?" I don't think a "balanced class" is necessary or even desirable in monsters and NPCs. I want a challenging monster or NPC with cool powers and background, scaled appropriately for the PCs, but a "class" behind the monster/NPC is often superfluous, IMO.
I view the NPC Classes as a guide for creating interesting NPC opponents scaled to the players, rather than as a structure of rules for advancing a character (player or non-player).
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 20, 2007 6:43:49 GMT -6
If I understand you correctly, your thinking is that PCs and NPCs should all operate under the same rules in the interest of fairness? Basically, I agree. If a PC sees an interesting NPC class, he or she might want to play it and I hate to say "well, it's really neat but you can't be one." Just seems wrong to me somehow. To me as well, so you've definitely understood my point. One of the cornerstones of OD&D and a lot of old school games is an unspoken social contract between the referee and the players. Maintaining the appearance of fairness is central to that social contract, as the players have to trust that the referee won't "cheat" in his application of the rules. Now, of course, there will be many times when the referee will bend the rules, sometimes in the player's favor and sometimes not, but it's nevertheless very important to keep up the illusion -- I hate to use that word because it has the wrong connotations -- of absolute fairness. NPC classes that break the rules often (though not always) do some violence to the social contract and that's a big part of why I dislike them.
|
|