TheRPGSite

Have you read or played a game where you feel certain classes/archetypes don't fit the premise, or simply don't work for some reason? For me it's..

The Driver in Apocalypse World. A character that's all about mobility on a game centered around community. Enough said.

The Decker in Shadowrun. I dare someone run the matrix RAW in an agile way as to not alienate the other players. It's one of the most convoluted piece of rules I've seen. When we played it we all agreed to handwave all that crap. That was the only way for us to have deckers in the group.

Monks, anyone? :)

Decker (for Shadowrun or CP) is an interesting case, since they certainly fit the premise. They just don't work unless everyone plays one (or you alternate game nights or something).

Here's one.
Certain games have what I will call "minor-characters." The 1e WoD had vampire's ghouls, werewolf's relatives, ghosts mediums, mage apprentices I think. WEG Star Wars had rules for droids. And these characters had their own advancement, but in the end the best they could do with tons of xp was worse that what the main character classes had at the start. They clearly weren't meant to be played on the same level as the main classes/types. Yet the books existed, and was there really going to be a lot of 'just droids' SW campaigns or 'just ghouls' vampire campaigns? So it seems like they only existed for that one person who wanted oh-so-much to play that role and wanted rules to allow it (and didn't care that they would effectively suck for the entire campaign).

Another:
Cyberpunk 2020 (again) had two classes that you would ever be: deckers (if you wanted that type of campaign, and there wasn't a whole rest of the party to throw up their hands when the netrunning started), and Solos. The combat advantages that Solos got were so insurmountable, and combat was enough of any non-net game, that you would never not play one unless the entire campaign concept was built around one of the other (such as playing a rockerboy in a campaign built around a touring band).

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;998182Monks, anyone? :)

Yup, Monks. They don't fit.  I never allow them, or at least I haven't in a very long time.

More often what I see are classes that feel redundant. Or like they should have been a sub-class.

The Barbarian in 5e is one example. The Sorcerer as well feels like it could have been a class path for the Wizard.

What's the problem with Monks? D&D, from 2e forward is clearly a combat-focused game, so an eastern warrior seems to fit. Or is it a matter of balance/numbers?

Quote from: Willie the DuckDecker (for Shadowrun or CP) is an interesting case, since they certainly fit the premise. They just don't work unless everyone plays one (or you alternate game nights or something).

Here's one.
Certain games have what I will call "minor-characters." The 1e WoD had vampire's ghouls, werewolf's relatives, ghosts mediums, mage apprentices I think. WEG Star Wars had rules for droids. And these characters had their own advancement, but in the end the best they could do with tons of xp was worse that what the main character classes had at the start. They clearly weren't meant to be played on the same level as the main classes/types. Yet the books existed, and was there really going to be a lot of 'just droids' SW campaigns or 'just ghouls' vampire campaigns? So it seems like they only existed for that one person who wanted oh-so-much to play that role and wanted rules to allow it (and didn't care that they would effectively such for the entire campaign).

Another:
Cyberpunk 2020 (again) had two classes that you would ever be: deckers (if you wanted that type of campaign, and there wasn't a whole rest of the party to throw up their hands when the netrunning started), and Solos. The combat advantages that Solos got were so insurmountable, and combat was enough of any non-net game, that you would never not play one unless the entire campaign concept was built around one of the other (such as playing a rockerboy in a campaign built around a touring band).

Yeah, never liked the option of "minor" charactes either. I remember Shadowrun first edition having a Rocker archetype. The concept by itself was flavourful, but it never fit the premise of doing shadowruns so they dropped it. Wisely so, I would say.

Quote from: Itachi;998189What's the problem with Monks? D&D, from 2e forward is clearly a combat-focused game, so an eastern warrior seems to fit. Or is it a matter of balance/numbers.

Because the default D&D setting is largely based upon a Western European world, in which case Kung Fu Monks don't seem to fit. However, the counterpoint is that in a fantasy setting anything goes, so you can stick in whatever. It depends on what you consider to be authentic or not.

D&D was never meant to be a historical simulation of medieval Western Europe, but a bunch of stuff from popular culture at the time. Which included Kung Fu. It was everywhere in the 1970s. Everyone was Kung Fu fighting was not just a song. And in the 1980s it eventually evolved into the ninja craze.

Makes about as much sense as Druids (pre Roman) or Rangers (completely fictional) or Assassins (based on the Islamic sect). More so, because a lot of the wuxia movies from the Shaw brothers were basically D&D movies.  Usually a small group of guys fighting against bandits or crooked government officials or somesuch with swords and glaives and other stuff

How many movies about Druids were there? The Wicker Man? And the first real assassin shows up in popular culture in Robin of Sherwood (though maybe he's a ranger) in the early 1980s. Yet there were 100s of Shaw brothers martial arts movies and they were constantly on TV

Quote from: JeremyR;998192D&D was never meant to be a historical simulation of medieval Western Europe

Yes it was:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1716[/ATTACH]

If being a simulation of medieval combat was their goal, then yeah, they failed miserably.

I'm a software developer with a lot of object-oriented experience.  I'll never quite come fully to terms with D&D classes, even though I can put the problem away and enjoy playing.  (It's this minor irritant that never goes away, but isn't enough to keep me out of the game.)

Specifically, I don't care for how "class" has an elastic meaning depending upon which classes we see.  For example, paladins and clerics are too much alike.  Then barbarians and rangers are specific while the fighter is generic.  If a ranger has spells, why do we have that instead of a rogue/druid or fighter/druid mix?  Or if we must have hybrid classes, why also multi-classing?  Yeah, I know, "archetypes".  Except that rationale is all over the place, too, with frequent gaps unaccounted for.  It's a mess.  It's a glorious mess, which is why I can enjoy it.

Monk definitely.  Although that was only during the past 10 years or so when I was told they meant kung-fu monks.

For years and years I thought they meant this kind of monk
(http://img.wondercostumes.com/images/products/2/fw5431350.jpg)

Which made me wonder how they got all those kewl powerz.

Original D&D was meant first and foremost to be a GAME!

So, yeah, if you want Franciscans running around doing flying kung-fu kicks, go for it!

Crom, now I have an idea for different techniques available for Franciscans, Cistercians, Benedictines...

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/rdlol.gif)

Quote from: TrippyHippy;998197Yes it was:

The title is in a font suitable for an old west saloon or wanted poster. The guy on the cover has a plate armor torso over a chainmail t-shirt, bare legs, one glove, boots like a comic book superhero, and a horned helmet from a Wagner opera. No country in Europe featured warriors equipped like that at any point between 500 and 1500AD. I don't think anything appeared like that in Europe until GWAR toured there in 1991.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998217Original D&D was meant first and foremost to be a GAME!

So, yeah, if you want Franciscans running around doing flying kung-fu kicks, go for it!

Crom, now I have an idea for different techniques available for Franciscans, Cistercians, Benedictines...

Surely Franciscans get Vow of Poverty, while Benedictines get Silence (30' radius) (Level) times /per day, but what do the Cistercians get, Drunken Kung-Fu:D?

Monks appeared because the Kung Fu TV show was in reruns, Brian Blume liked the Destroyer books, and Jim Ward thought the song "Kung Fu Fighting" was funny.

It had fuckdiddlydoodahday to do with "world building" or "history."

I agree that the decker in shadowrun wasnt really playable. Rules too complex, takes too long. It's a minigame involving only one player and we just handwaived it. On the other hand, in SR5, they have integrated it better with I forget the term but basically wireless networks and graphic overlays over everything, which allows the hacker to be with the squad when doing their mission. so it just becomes another kind of magic.

Having said all that, games like SR5 are too complex for what I want these days. I'd like a simplified version. I havent tried SR anarchy yet but do mean to, but I think I would have preferred just a slimmed down SR5 (less modifiers, less options, but keeping dice pools, damage tracks, etc)

D&D says "fantastic Medieval" not "historical medieval"

As for Monks they only don't fit if your game is heavilly based on Europe. I think the idea of an unarmed combat master as a character class in a fantasy game is a great one. In the big melting pot that is D&D it is hard to pull any one thing out and say "this is sillier than everything else".

As for Solos and Deckers in Cyberpunk they absolutely fit thematically. It was Rockerboys that everyone thought were lame in our campaigns.  Just because the mechanics were fucked up doesn't mean the classes didn't fit.

What I find a hard fit is Pure Strain Humans in many post apocalyptic games. The mutants, human and otherwise, get all sorts of cool powers, there may be robots and psyborgs, and psykers, and even aliens, why play a plain vanilla human? They just seem scrawny and weak and bland.

One of the issues with Monks is that they seem inherently alien by concept.  If eastern style Martial Arts is a thing in the setting then why isn't the Fighter doing it too?

Monks too often seem to necessarily be from elsewhere, some nebulous East.  (If your game is actually set in Not-China do you really need Monks as a class?)  As such they tend to lend themselves well to that annoying character from that guy who can't be bothered integrating into the setting.

Quote from: RunningLaser;998202Monk definitely.  Although that was only during the past 10 years or so when I was told they meant kung-fu monks.

For years and years I thought they meant this kind of monk
(http://img.wondercostumes.com/images/products/2/fw5431350.jpg)

Which made me wonder how they got all those kewl powerz.

First Monk I ever played was Friar Tuck from an old Dragon Magazine.

At least in a couple versions of d&d monks were the class that didn't need the rest of the party.  They could fight, sneek, heal and magic.  Why did they need any one else?

I don't have a major problem with the classes of 'classic' D&D, but I've always (like, since 1977) thought they made a mistake by focusing too strongly on 'meta' class concepts that don't really have much to do with roles in historical medieval societies. For example, the fighter sub-types are a mish-mash of generic categories (Fighter), fantasy-inspired specific ideas (Ranger), and cultural background (Barbarian). I think it all would have been more natural if they had gone with things like Soldier, Knight, Nobleman, a Monk who really is like a medieval monastic, and so forth. This is what Paladium and Chivalry and Sorcery did, and the end result is more satisfying. It is also what the OSR supplement, The Rose War does, and I'm fond of that.

D&D monks seem weird but Kung Fu was a genre busting subversive cowboy western. Too cool to leave out. That said, the monk doesn't fit straight western medieval settings. Adjust to taste.

The D&D assassin is a mechanical oddball, with its autokill assassination chart.  Like the thief with his % skill list, he has his own game going on, but it plays much worse.

One of the enduring features of old D&D is that it's easy to change things. The wet canons miss that.

Well yes you can change this.  It's just a bit of a pain with more recent additions with so much extra stuff added in.  Yes you can say no, but after a while the list of things can start getting long and you feel like a bit of a killjoy.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998234Monks appeared because the Kung Fu TV show was in reruns, Brian Blume liked the Destroyer books, and Jim Ward thought the song "Kung Fu Fighting" was funny.

It had fuckdiddlydoodahday to do with "world building" or "history."

So I was right and those were Destroyer nods in the monk.

Quote from: saskganesh;998261D&D monks seem weird but Kung Fu was a genre busting subversive cowboy western. Too cool to leave out. That said, the monk doesn't fit straight western medieval settings. Adjust to taste.

The D&D assassin is a mechanical oddball, with its autokill assassination chart.  Like the thief with his % skill list, he has his own game going on, but it plays much worse.

One of the enduring features of old D&D is that it's easy to change things. The wet canons miss that.

I never quite understood trying to simulate medieval Europe with D&D. The implied setting, if one follows the rules in the (original) DMG, is a pretty weird place all its own.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998234Monks appeared because the Kung Fu TV show was in reruns...

Not sure about the "reruns" bit. Monks appeared in Blackmoor (published in 1975). New episodes of Kung Fu were on the air until April of 1975. I do agree that it was clear at the time Blackmoor was published that Monks had fuck-all to do with any sort of a coherent, non-kitchen sink setting.

Huh.  Didn't realize Kung Fu was on that long.  It was decades ago after all.

There are these things called Internet search engines...:p

There are these people called lazy old farts...

Has no one said Paladins yet?  Especially old school always Lawful Good Paladins - because they are always a fucking pain.

Quote from: TJS;998327Has no one said Paladins yet?  Especially old school always Lawful Good Paladins - because they are always a fucking pain.

Well if you just roll 3d6 down the board you almost never get a PC qualified to be a Paladin.

I love kung-fu movies as much as the next guy (Black Belt Jones is one of my all-time favorite movies) but I think both the monk and ranger are pretty retarded. They should just be fighters and if the player wants their fighter to use his bare hands and no armor, or roam the wilderness looking for humanoids to kill, they can do so.

[video=youtube;APTdjG6Xo9A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APTdjG6Xo9A[/youtube]

The Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game had more European Monks but they worshiped the gods of ancient Egypt, very likely because Kevin had written them up for Valley of the Pharaohs.  They had a completely defensive martial art like Aikido because they were pacifists.  I'm not quite sure how it relates beyond monks and western civilization and weird mash-ups.

It occurs to me that Street Rats, Rogue Academics, and such like in Rifts might fit.

Even on 4d6 take 3, a paladin requires you to sacrifice a 17 to Charisma.

Quote from: TJS;998327Has no one said Paladins yet?  Especially old school always Lawful Good Paladins - because they are always a fucking pain.

Quote from: Bren;998329Well if you just roll 3d6 down the board you almost never get a PC qualified to be a Paladin.

I thought I'd save some lazy old fart the trouble of responding.

I've never had any trouble with anybody playing a Paladin, and I've certainly never seen them be a 'fucking pain'.

There are, I believe, two reasons.  First, none of us would be afraid to say "Stop being a fucking pain or we won't play/I won't ref any more for this character."

Secondly, they're so damned scarce that the first reason definitely made people stop and think.

Quote from: Elfdart;998333I love kung-fu movies as much as the next guy (Black Belt Jones is one of my all-time favorite movies) but I think both the monk and ranger are pretty retarded. They should just be fighters and if the player wants their fighter to use his bare hands and no armor, or roam the wilderness looking for humanoids to kill, they can do so.

[video=youtube;APTdjG6Xo9A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APTdjG6Xo9A[/youtube]

Ah! BLACK BELT JONES! Endlessly entertaining!

Police chief guy: "It's top priority."
BB: "I'M top priority!"

Karate guy in dark room: "Who the fuck hit me?"
BB: "BATMAN,  motherfucker!"

Love that movie. Have you seen the sequel, HOT POTATO?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1722[/ATTACH]

Man, I would play a Blaxploitation kung fu game in a heartbeat.

Quote from: Bren;998329Well if you just roll 3d6 down the board you almost never get a PC qualified to be a Paladin

In my very first AD&D group I saw this happen with a legit 18/00 STR to boot. It's rare but it does happen.

Quote from: TJS;998327Has no one said Paladins yet?  Especially old school always Lawful Good Paladins - because they are always a fucking pain.

I really like 1e Paladins. As a player or a DM with a player who groks them, they can be a lot of fun.

Did no one play 3E? Or even 2E with alternate methods of character creation.

Quote from: Krimson;998353I really like 1e Paladins. As a player or a DM with a player who groks them, they can be a lot of fun.

I don't mind them for their own sake.  It's just when the rest of the party consists of rogues and scoundrels out for as much loot as they can grub up, Sir Galahad doesn't really fit in very well.

That is not a rules problem, that is a players' problem.  Figure out how you're going to work together.

Gronan's Three Laws of Gaming (nee Asimov)

1)  The rules can't fix stupid
2)  The rules can't fix asshole
3)  Anything that happened when you, or the referee, were 14, does not constitute a need to change the rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998360That is not a rules problem, that is a players' problem.  Figure out how you're going to work together.

Gronan's Three Laws of Gaming (nee Asimov)

1)  The rules can't fix stupid
2)  The rules can't fix asshole
3)  Anything that happened when you, or the referee, were 14, does not constitute a need to change the rules.

Who said there was a rules problem?  The questions was: which classes don't fit.  The answer: frequently the Paladin.  The solution: pick another class.

Post D&D 2e - The Fighter

3e- most of the classes and PrC's outside of the core book.
4e - all of them.
5e - Warlock. Eldritch Knight, Sorcerer, Druid.

Knives out, boys. Let's do this.

Quote from: tenbones;998371Post D&D 2e - The Fighter

3e- most of the classes and PrC's outside of the core book.
4e - all of them.
5e - Warlock. Eldritch Knight, Sorcerer, Druid.

Knives out, boys. Let's do this.

Why Druid out of curiosity?

I ask because I pretty much agree about the other 5E classes.

Psionic classes felt really tacked on. The only settings they've felt part of is Dark Sun and Eberron.

Quote from: Itachi;998189What's the problem with Monks? D&D, from 2e forward is clearly a combat-focused game, so an eastern warrior seems to fit. Or is it a matter of balance/numbers?

Quote from: Headless;998256At least in a couple versions of d&d monks were the class that didn't need the rest of the party.  They could fight, sneek, heal and magic.  Why did they need any one else?

In both cases, the answer is balance/numbers. Pre-3e monks could do all the roles (except maybe tracking). But they weren't really as good. They had crummy hp and AC, no real spells (only use magic items), and insufficient healing even for themselves. 3e monks looked great on paper, but needed 18s in 4-5 stats before they could even keep pace with any other class. Post 3e they seem to have become equal to rogues as a mid-combat skirmish class with less durability but special tricks and immunities.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;998201Specifically, I don't care for how "class" has an elastic meaning depending upon which classes we see.  ...  Except that rationale is all over the place, too, with frequent gaps unaccounted for.  It's a mess.  It's a glorious mess, which is why I can enjoy it.

This is why I always say that you'll be disappointed if you're looking to find a "there" there. D&D is a 'first' something, and like most of them, is a mongrel thing that resists attempts at base principles. Classes are just classes. There isn't a consistent rationale, there are gaps. It's a glorious mess and for some people that's bad, some people that's good, some people wouldn't have it any other way, and some people (like me) simply recognize that when you do try to fit an organically derived thing like this into a consistent, principled form, you'll probably damage the thing or change it into something else entirely.

Quote from: DavetheLost;998244What I find a hard fit is Pure Strain Humans in many post apocalyptic games. The mutants, human and otherwise, get all sorts of cool powers, there may be robots and psyborgs, and psykers, and even aliens, why play a plain vanilla human? They just seem scrawny and weak and bland.

Well, GW and MA had it where they were the ones that could use all the pre-apocalypse technology. Otherwise, you are right. But it's just like D&D races-- you either have to artificially construct some benefit for the vanilla choice, or you have to give the other choices some clear disadvantage such that the vanilla choice is also the 'nothing good, but nothing bad' choice.

Quote from: TJS;998355Did no one play 3E? Or even 2E with alternate methods of character creation.

I'm sure both. What is the actual question?

One thing I never quite get about paladins being a problem.  Are your evil characters really that bad at lying or sneaking around?  For some reason a lot of people play evil characters as sociopaths.  The way to handle a paladin is to make sure they see you doing good deeds and back them up on moral decisions.  That way they'll act as a character witness when you get accused of those things you did.  "Bob's a paladin, you'll take his word won't you?"  Sure if your DM is really generous on the whole detect evil thing or it's widely known in the setting, but even then, where's the evidence.  Turning on people with no more basis than a hunch pretty unreasonable.

The reason you play a pure strain human is powered armor and death machines.

Quote from: TJS;998356I don't mind them for their own sake.  It's just when the rest of the party consists of rogues and scoundrels out for as much loot as they can grub up, Sir Galahad doesn't really fit in very well.

"I need to go relieve myself again. When I get back, there had better not be a scene of slaughter with my share of the loot waiting for me in a neat pile. Wink wink."

Quote from: TJS;998378Why Druid out of curiosity?

I ask because I pretty much agree about the other 5E classes.

This one took some thought and consideration. Basically - I don't like the Druid because to me it should be a speciality class for the Cleric. I don't like generic "Clerics", I think the Specialty Priest from 2e was the best iteration of the concept of the Cleric ever. When I ran 2e - you *had* to be a Specialty Priest. I think the concept of the Druid should fall into something like that in 5e. It would require much re-work but I simply believe they occupy the same game-concept space. It's one of the things I don't like about 5e, which is a holdover from 4e in design: the creation of classes to justify silly mechanics, instead of the other way around. I think the Druid conceptually absolutely belongs in the D&D gamespace. I think it should be folded under the Cleric class.

Quote from: Johnnii;998381Psionic classes felt really tacked on. The only settings they've felt part of is Dark Sun and Eberron.

That's because they are tacked on, heh.

Quote from: tenbones;998439This one took some thought and consideration. Basically - I don't like the Druid because to me it should be a speciality class for the Cleric. I don't like generic "Clerics", I think the Specialty Priest from 2e was the best iteration of the concept of the Cleric ever. When I ran 2e - you *had* to be a Specialty Priest. I think the concept of the Druid should fall into something like that in 5e. It would require much re-work but I simply believe they occupy the same game-concept space. It's one of the things I don't like about 5e, which is a holdover from 4e in design: the creation of classes to justify silly mechanics, instead of the other way around. I think the Druid conceptually absolutely belongs in the D&D gamespace. I think it should be folded under the Cleric class.

I agree with the criticism, but think you get the cause wrong.  Such stuff is retained in 5E because of the rabid pushback they got from 4E that made them promise to have all the traditional classes in, as primary classes, come hell or high water.

Though the whole "shape changer" shtick of the druid will always be a problem until they figure out a better way to handle that concept, whether with druid or something else.

Quote from: David Johansen;998423One thing I never quite get about paladins being a problem.  Are your evil characters really that bad at lying or sneaking around?  For some reason a lot of people play evil characters as sociopaths.  The way to handle a paladin is to make sure they see you doing good deeds and back them up on moral decisions.  That way they'll act as a character witness when you get accused of those things you did.  "Bob's a paladin, you'll take his word won't you?"  Sure if your DM is really generous on the whole detect evil thing or it's widely known in the setting, but even then, where's the evidence.  Turning on people with no more basis than a hunch pretty unreasonable.

That's because many people play "evil" as "Chaotic Psychopathic Hyperactive Moronic."

Really, I need to kill those off more often.  Consequences and such.  The problem is that when I'm running games at the store, it's not worth my time or energy to put up with some little shit pitching a tantrum and rolling around on the floor and wetting his pants.  I think I'm hitting the point of having store owner ptsd.

One thing I do make clear to the players of paladins is that the alignment grid has gradiations.  Most people don't get far enough out of the self interested / neutral zone to register on a detect alignment spell.  Also, supernatural evil is more likely to do so because it emanates magically.  In my neo-clone Dark Passages I went as far as to state in the detect evil spell's text that attacking people based on the spell's results destroys its ability to function as the user is now evil enough to interfere with any signal others might give off.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;998449I agree with the criticism, but think you get the cause wrong.  Such stuff is retained in 5E because of the rabid pushback they got from 4E that made them promise to have all the traditional classes in, as primary classes, come hell or high water.

No, I do understand that. 5e is a big appeasement to everyone that fought in the Nerdzerker Edition Wars. I understand *why*, I'm just saying it's not good design. It's designing for the surface instead of going for depth. Creating a set of classes around bad mechanics is not how it one should design an RPG. See your shape-changer schtick comment below as an obvious example.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;998449Though the whole "shape changer" shtick of the druid will always be a problem until they figure out a better way to handle that concept, whether with druid or something else.

Precisamundo. This is not to say it can't be done via spells (you know, create a set of scalable spells for each "tier" of power with a set of forms a Druid could take? Or have it tied to a specific form based on the Druidic order where the form scales with level. Blah blah blah. Plenty of ways to skin this beast. Ideally I'd have made the Druid an archetype of the Cleric class and worked it out that way based on Nature God orders.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998452That's because many people play "evil" as "Chaotic Psychopathic Hyperactive Moronic."

Yep. Likely because they don't understand philosophically what "evil" is vs. their cartoonish assumptions of what it is. It's also partly why alignment beyond good/evil or law/chaos axis's are usually silly.

They should have just gone with creeds for Paladins and Clerics coming from their respective orders/religions/Gods/whatever - and let the players play accordingly. D&D shouldn't be a game where you have to explain the depths of ethics and morality in order to play a paladin or cleric... yet dumbasses always want to make it that way to justify usually stupid things.

"evil" as "Chaotic Psychopathic Hyperactive Moronic."<--- which is a great descriptor of such things.

Quote from: Krimson;998352In my very first AD&D group I saw this happen with a legit 18/00 STR to boot. It's rare but it does happen.

Of course it's possible that a 1 in 4.6 million occurrence will occur. But it is really unlikely that for any given play group it will occur.

Quote from: David Johansen;998423One thing I never quite get about paladins being a problem.  Are your evil characters really that bad at lying or sneaking around?  For some reason a lot of people play evil characters as sociopaths.  The way to handle a paladin is to make sure they see you doing good deeds and back them up on moral decisions.  That way they'll act as a character witness when you get accused of those things you did.  "Bob's a paladin, you'll take his word won't you?"  Sure if your DM is really generous on the whole detect evil thing or it's widely known in the setting, but even then, where's the evidence.  Turning on people with no more basis than a hunch pretty unreasonable.

How long would an evil character be able or willing to keep up the charade and to what end? Lifetime criminals don't tend to bond and spend loads of time with cops.

The obvious real answer is to not create groups with idiotic dynamics that require you to either abandon RPing or lead to PvP.

Quote from: TJS;998356I don't mind them for their own sake.  It's just when the rest of the party consists of rogues and scoundrels out for as much loot as they can grub up, Sir Galahad doesn't really fit in very well.

My immediate reaction is that's more a problem with the rest of the game than with the paladin, but I admit a strong bias on this point. :D

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;998449I agree with the criticism, but think you get the cause wrong.  Such stuff is retained in 5E because of the rabid pushback they got from 4E that made them promise to have all the traditional classes in, as primary classes, come hell or high water.

Though the whole "shape changer" shtick of the druid will always be a problem until they figure out a better way to handle that concept, whether with druid or something else.

The funny thing is it's actually has A fairly obvious fix.
You see where the problem comes from is that they want to more or less say use the stats from the monster Manuel so it tends to cause problems for fairly obvious reasons YOU ARE LITERALLY GIVING PLAYERS THE MONSTER MANUAL AS A TOOL.
All they need to do to is change forms over to being an actual power like A spell with listed bonuses and penalty's for that form making the druid keeps his phys scores with what ever bonuses are appropriate and choose there forms as they level in A fashion similar to spells to stop the Swiss army transformations which also has the added benefit of more closely being able to control how powerful the transformations the druid can use at A given level are.

Quote from: Bren;998489Of course it's possible that a 1 in 4.6 million occurrence will occur. But it is really unlikely that for any given play group it will occur.

1 in 4,665,600 to be precise. Better than the odds that you're going to win powerball, but not good odds.

I don't doubt it and if I took the time I could probably calculate the odds myself. I don't think I will ever see another Paladin with 18/00 Strength but there were a few Paladins over the year. By few I mean like three over two decades. Some nights, people just roll good.

In my ideal D20 (3.5-ish) system, there would only be 4 classes: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. If you wanted to be anything else, you'd buy feats. True20 came close.

Actually, the one that doesn't really fit into Sword and Sorcery literature, from the very dawn of D&D, is the Cleric. You just don't get that many fictional Cleric types in fantasy literature. In my ideal system, there would be these four base classes: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard.....with the Ranger taking the role as a healer and auxiliary fighter just as per the Cleric in many respects. In many D&D editions, indeed, I feel that the Ranger struggles with it's core identity largely because it had it's niche taken from it.

The role of healing makes a lot of sense if you think about a Ranger's natural abilities to help survive in the wilderness. It's never been able to establish itself with this identity however, as the Cleric has always taken that fundamental role. So in this respect, the Cleric is the Class that doesn't fit the game. That said, I wouldn't ditch the Cleric as a Class in my own game, but I would have developed the concept more independently from the idea of class healer, and more of a priestly type with different traits depending upon the divine choice.

The Sorcerer also doesn't fit as a Class. It was introduced as a more spontenious alternative to Wizards in 3rd edition, which is fine. However, this point is made slightly redundant when every class, including the Wizard, spontaneously casts now in 5E. So essentially, a Sorcerer is just a Charisma-based spell caster now, which isn't that strong a concept. They could make it a bit more distinct, as they did attempt to do with the Dragon-blooded Sorcerer, but I'm not sure it was that well executed (particularly as a luke warm combo with Dragonborn, which ought to be a natural fit), and the Wild Magic thing should have just been a Feat. So, in all, Sorcerers struggle a bit to fit in for me too.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;998592My immediate reaction is that's more a problem with the rest of the game than with the paladin, but I admit a strong bias on this point. :D

There would certainly have to be a good reason that a Paladin would work with a party of rogues and scoundrels, preferably a lawful good reason. Either the scum and villainy are desperate for muscle and possibly healing, which means the Paladin might be able to bully them into good behaviour, at least while said Paladin is looking. Or the Paladin decides to adventure with them. Now most Paladins aren't stupid, and combined with being able to Detect Evil, they would know who to keep a close eye on. A Paladin can be a door opener simply due to status, which could be handy in finding wealthy patrons to do jobs for, if they aren't already doing something for a church for whatever Deity the Paladin follows. So long as whomever they are murderhoboing pings evil, the Paladin is not going to have an issue with killing them and taking their stuff. It is possible to kill two birds with one stone, and Paladins who are often aligned with religions can provide great plot seeds with the potential for enough loot to put most thieves on their best behaviour.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;998626Actually, the one that doesn't really fit into Sword and Sorcery literature, from the very dawn of D&D, is the Cleric. You just don't get that many fictional Cleric types in fantasy literature. In my ideal system, there would be these four base classes: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard.....with the Ranger taking the role as a healer and auxiliary fighter just as per the Cleric in many respects. In many D&D editions, indeed, I feel that the Ranger struggles with it's core identity largely because it had it's niche taken from it.

I can see that, especially if you're approaching fantasy from a Tolkien influence. But I can also see a cleric (probably more of a priest, as you mention below) being a core class due to the Lanhkmar influence, and maybe the Greco/Roman influence. My problem with "clerics as priests" is that thematically they just become a different type of wizard, and mechnically they become a wizard that can fight better.

QuoteThe Sorcerer also doesn't fit as a Class. It was introduced as a more spontenious alternative to Wizards in 3rd edition, which is fine. However, this point is made slightly redundant when every class, including the Wizard, spontaneously casts now in 5E. So essentially, a Sorcerer is just a Charisma-based spell caster now, which isn't that strong a concept. They could make it a bit more distinct, as they did attempt to do with the Dragon-blooded Sorcerer, but I'm not sure it was that well executed (particularly as a luke warm combo with Dragonborn, which ought to be a natural fit), and the Wild Magic thing should have just been a Feat. So, in all, Sorcerers struggle a bit to fit in for me too.

Yeah, the sorcerer never appealed to me. It seemed like a solution in search of a problem. And since I don't like Dragonborn, that angle is moot for me. Wild Magic as a feat will work, but I'd like to see Wild Magic as a mechanic: something that happens when you overextend yourself in an attempt to get more power. Of course, that would require rewriting the table, emphasizing the scary rather than the funny.

What Classes Don't Fit....

This really is a matter of what game is being played and what it's trying to emulate isn't it? I mean D&D is such a broad spectrum of kitchen sink that most classes have SOME place for them, depending on what Setting you're going with. Paladins, Clerics, and divine classes don't belong in Dark Sun, for example while I think that more primal classes such as Druids are a bit out of place in a setting like Eberron. Not to mention how much "realism" you want to flush into the setting. I'd agree with Tenbones that 4e classes aren't a good representation of trying to mix realism into a D&D campaign, but I'd say they're perfect to emulating high-fantasy heroism that is consistent with D&D.

Quote from: Krimson;998633There would certainly have to be a good reason that a Paladin would work with a party of rogues and scoundrels, preferably a lawful good reason. Either the scum and villainy are desperate for muscle and possibly healing, which means the Paladin might be able to bully them into good behaviour, at least while said Paladin is looking. Or the Paladin decides to adventure with them. Now most Paladins aren't stupid, and combined with being able to Detect Evil, they would know who to keep a close eye on. A Paladin can be a door opener simply due to status, which could be handy in finding wealthy patrons to do jobs for, if they aren't already doing something for a church for whatever Deity the Paladin follows. So long as whomever they are murderhoboing pings evil, the Paladin is not going to have an issue with killing them and taking their stuff. It is possible to kill two birds with one stone, and Paladins who are often aligned with religions can provide great plot seeds with the potential for enough loot to put most thieves on their best behaviour.

Worth noting that Paladins in 5e Detect Evil only detects supernatural evil like undead and demons/devils. I think that is a good fix for the always goofy side effects of detect evil/good.

Quote from: Dumarest;998347Ah! BLACK BELT JONES! Endlessly entertaining!

Police chief guy: "It's top priority."
BB: "I'M top priority!"

Karate guy in dark room: "Who the fuck hit me?"
BB: "BATMAN,  motherfucker!"

Love that movie. Have you seen the sequel, HOT POTATO?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1722[/ATTACH]

Man, I would play a Blaxploitation kung fu game in a heartbeat.

Ahem... http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/148480/Spirit-of-77-Core-Rulebook

Quote from: Voros;998935Worth noting that Paladins in 5e Detect Evil only detects supernatural evil like undead and demons/devils. I think that is a good fix for the always goofy side effects of detect evil/good.

It was similar in TSR D&D as well. Had to be exuding supernatural, or very high level (9+) unwavering devotees (evil priests) in the middle of an evil act (which basic observation would confirm). WotC made an effort to undo a lot of its past "improvements!" in this 5e edition as a compromise to OSR/old-skool no longer needing licensing for presence: the compromise edition. :)

The Mary Sue class.

Quote from: Certified;998944Ahem... http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/148480/Spirit-of-77-Core-Rulebook

Ah, but does it come with two to six players interested in playing?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;998201Specifically, I don't care for how "class" has an elastic meaning depending upon which classes we see.  For example, paladins and clerics are too much alike.  Then barbarians and rangers are specific while the fighter is generic.  If a ranger has spells, why do we have that instead of a rogue/druid or fighter/druid mix?  Or if we must have hybrid classes, why also multi-classing?  Yeah, I know, "archetypes".  Except that rationale is all over the place, too, with frequent gaps unaccounted for.  It's a mess.  It's a glorious mess, which is why I can enjoy it.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;998420This is why I always say that you'll be disappointed if you're looking to find a "there" there. D&D is a 'first' something, and like most of them, is a mongrel thing that resists attempts at base principles. Classes are just classes. There isn't a consistent rationale, there are gaps. It's a glorious mess and for some people that's bad, some people that's good, some people wouldn't have it any other way, and some people (like me) simply recognize that when you do try to fit an organically derived thing like this into a consistent, principled form, you'll probably damage the thing or change it into something else entirely.

Oh, so much this. Is a class a broad skillset or description, like the fighter? Is it a narrow archetype, like the paladin? (The exclusively LG one being almost a specific character unto itself.) Is it a cultural role, like the barbarian? Which is it?

I've accepted that D&D classes will always be a mishmash of inconsistent concepts, but it's something I enjoy D&D despite of rather than because of.

Eh, it's D&D ; I kinda figure you take it for what it is if you're going to play it, oddball classes and all, otherwise why not just play another game, maybe even one without classes.

Forget it, Jake; it's D & D.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1735[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;998182Monks, anyone? :)

My choice.  Although I will add the D&D Barbarian.

The AD&D (1e) Bard was a mess.

Quote from: HappyDaze;999113The AD&D (1e) Bard was a mess.

Fortunately it was nearly impossible to roll the needed scores and achieve the needed levels to become a hard so it was always a moot point when I used to play AD&D. You were better off playing a fighter and strapping on a lute  and calling yourself a bard or minstrel or whatever.

Quote from: Elfdart;998333I love kung-fu movies as much as the next guy (Black Belt Jones is one of my all-time favorite movies) but I think both the monk and ranger are pretty retarded. They should just be fighters and if the player wants their fighter to use his bare hands and no armor, or roam the wilderness looking for humanoids to kill, they can do so.

[video=youtube;APTdjG6Xo9A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APTdjG6Xo9A[/youtube]

The badguys were better martial artists than BB!  I LOVE IT!

Quote from: tenbones;998371Post D&D 2e - The Fighter

3e- most of the classes and PrC's outside of the core book.
4e - all of them.
5e - Warlock. Eldritch Knight, Sorcerer, Druid.

Knives out, boys. Let's do this.

*Stands with and gets the great sword.*

Quote from: Dumarest;999114Fortunately it was nearly impossible to roll the needed scores and achieve the needed levels to become a hard so it was always a moot point when I used to play AD&D. You were better off playing a fighter and strapping on a lute  and calling yourself a bard or minstrel or whatever.

Is a "hard" a specialty class for a tougher bard?

Quote from: Dumarest;999114Fortunately it was nearly impossible to roll the needed scores and achieve the needed levels to become a hard so it was always a moot point when I used to play AD&D. You were better off playing a fighter and strapping on a lute  and calling yourself a bard or minstrel or whatever.

True of the Paladin as well yet there were lots of Paladins at tables. Almost as if the 3d6 rolled in order claims were BS.

;)

Quote from: Voros;999131True of the Paladin as well yet there were lots of Paladins at tables. Almost as if the 3d6 rolled in order claims were BS.

;)

3d6 in order Paladins existed, just rare as fuck.  3d6 in order 18/00's...anything's possible.  People win the lottery all the time. I've rolled a god-awful amount of PCs and NPCs though and the only 18/00 was a 4d6 arrange.

Personally I think for OD&D 3d6 in order or 3d6 arrange is fine.  Basic can do either I guess, but once you hit AD&D1, 4d6 in order or 4d6 arrange is probably "better" as you'll get a better chance to actually use the whole stat table and rarer classes.

Yeah but my point is that Paladin weren't rare at any of the tables I saw. So many people were obviously not using 3d6 in order, claims to the contrary since notwithstanding.

I have no idea what others did at their tables.

I have had exactly 2 Paladins rolled up at my table.

Considering how fucking powerful they are, that's a good thing.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;998626Actually, the one that doesn't really fit into Sword and Sorcery literature, from the very dawn of D&D, is the Cleric. You just don't get that many fictional Cleric types in fantasy literature. In my ideal system, there would be these four base classes: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard.....with the Ranger taking the role as a healer and auxiliary fighter just as per the Cleric in many respects. In many D&D editions, indeed, I feel that the Ranger struggles with it's core identity largely because it had it's niche taken from it.

   You have a point, although the Ranger also suffers from trying to decide whether it wants to be Aragorn or Robin Hood. I'd rather go back to some of Gygax' inspiration and refluff the cleric/ranger as Knights Templar (who were not priests, although they took monastic vows), Rangers of the North/the Rim :), vampire hunters, and/or Jedi. Basically, any group of healers/mystic warriors without the religious baggage, especially once Supplement IV introduced pagan religions and started the drift towards Neutralist Symbiotic Henotheism.

  But of the classic D&D classes, the monk still stands out for me if only because the mental image of someone using a punch against plate armor jars me most. :)

Quote from: Bren;999124Is a "hard" a specialty class for a tougher bard?

Heck, my phone wants to turn "pickle" into "Portland," we're  lucky, at least it rhymed with the original word.

And yes, it's the hard-ass bard who beats down hecklers. You need higher Strength and Constitution to qualify.

Quote from: Voros;999131True of the Paladin as well yet there were lots of Paladins at tables. Almost as if the 3d6 rolled in order claims were BS.

;)

I believe it. I mean, I always manage to roll 18/00 Strength for my fighters. Someday there will be a witness.

Quote from: Voros;999133Yeah but my point is that Paladin weren't rare at any of the tables I saw. So many people were obviously not using 3d6 in order, claims to the contrary since notwithstanding.

So you're claiming that...

1. Paladins were not rare at ANY of the tables you physically saw.
2. People claim they used 3d6 in order.

You realize that unless the people you're fighting with on the internet these days somehow happen to be the same people you once saw playing, those two things have nothing to do with each other, right?  

For example, Gronan, one of the grogs you're probably lumping into this group of liars you're concocting, claims 3d6 in order and only two paladins.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998217Original D&D was meant first and foremost to be a GAME!

So, yeah, if you want Franciscans running around doing flying kung-fu kicks, go for it!

Crom, now I have an idea for different techniques available for Franciscans, Cistercians, Benedictines...

This guy gets it.

I like the Monk class, and in a campaign setting I had an idea for, Monks were styled like a mix between Professional Wrestlers and MMA Fighters. Essentially WWE meets UFC with a bit of Street Fighter and Dead or Alive thrown in for good measure.

A class only doesn't fit a game if you don't want it to. D&D is first and foremost a fantasy game (emphasis on game) and so if you want Kung Fu monks in a faux Medieval European setting, I say go for it!

I did roll a dwarf fighter with 18/00 Strength once, 4d6 method unwitnessed and actually just rolled in the stack of characters rolled up for the heck of it so he was picked out of maybe a dozen other characters in the same stack and it's hardly the only stack of those I've ever rolled and it's the only time I've rolled it.  The DM let me play him any how.  I'd have accepted rerolling the 00.  Grungi Hassenbrath, a Dwarf raised by Gnolls based on a Dragon Magazine Ecology article.  Wore chainmail he'd squeezed a man out of and wielded a morning star made from a fence post run through with iron spikes and bound with flayed flesh, never bathed.  He died, don't remember how really, we were only second or third level and on a spell jamming ship.  Elves I think.  It happens.

One option I used sometimes with second edition was 3d6 in order and start at third level or 4d6 take the best three and put them where you want and start at first level.  I might go back to that.  Fifth edition plays well enough but somehow it's a disappointment I think all that balancing just winds up bland and uninspiring a lot of the time.

I still hate monks though I've got a bad case of post eighties post ninjafication traumatic stress disorder.

Quote from: CRKrueger;999184For example, Gronan, one of the grogs you're probably lumping into this group of liars you're concocting, claims 3d6 in order and only two paladins.

Man you're a borderline mental case.

Do you think I was gaming with grognards in the 80s? Course not, nothing of what I said has to do with Gronan you manchild.

Quote from: Voros;999213Man you're a borderline mental case.

Do you think I was gaming with grognards in the 80s? Course not, nothing of what I said has to do with Gronan you manchild.

Here's what you said:
Yeah but my point is that Paladin weren't rare at any of the tables I saw.
So many people were obviously not using 3d6 in order, claims to the contrary since notwithstanding.

So you're saying you encountered those same people you used to game with at some later date and they are all claiming they rolled 3d6 in order back then?  

You weren't suggesting all the internet grogs you love so much that say they use 3d6 in order are lying based on what you saw whenever back in the day?

Ok, good to know. :D

Quote from: Dumarest;999079Ah, but does it come with two to six players interested in playing?

Just show your friends the Kickstarter video, then you will have players.

Quote from: Certified;999246Just show your friends the Kickstarter video, then you will have players.

Spirit of '77 looks like it would be hella fun to play every once in a while in between stretches of normal campaigning.

Quote from: Voros;999133Yeah but my point is that Paladin weren't rare at any of the tables I saw. So many people were obviously not using 3d6 in order, claims to the contrary since notwithstanding.

In this and your prior posts you seem to be saying 3 things.

   Statement 1. Paladins weren't rare at tables you saw back in the 1980s.
Statement 2. Therefore people back then at tables you saw were not rolling 3d6 in order.
Statement 3. Therefore people today (whose tables you didn't and haven't seen) must not have been rolling 3d6 in order back then.

Statement 2 follows (more or less) from statement 1.
Statement 3 is a nonsequitur. It does not in any way follow from statements 1 + 2.

You can do 3d6 in order a number of times until you get the results you want.  If every one plays three characters and you run a high mortality first level funnel, stuff like Paladins will become more common.

If someone at my table really wanted to play a paladin that bad, I'd probably just let them have the minimum stats required if they agreed to actually roleplay his belief system. Playing a paladin and sticking to your god's rules and adhering to your alignment shouldn't be easy. I don't really care if you rolled well enough if your heart is set on the challenge. Maybe I'll give you an albatross of some kind to make up for the extra points.

Quote from: David Johansen;999282You can do 3d6 in order a number of times until you get the results you want.

Sure and I can write a computer program or set up an Excel spreadsheet to do the rolling for me but none of those solutions fit the spirit or aesthetic of "roll 3d6 in order."

Quote from: Bren;999281In this and your prior posts you seem to be saying 3 things.

   Statement 1. Paladins weren't rare at tables you saw back in the 1980s.
Statement 2. Therefore people back then at tables you saw were not rolling 3d6 in order.
Statement 3. Therefore people today (whose tables you didn't and haven't seen) must not have been rolling 3d6 in order back then.

Statement 2 follows (more or less) from statement 1.
Statement 3 is a nonsequitur. It does not in any way follow from statements 1 + 2.

I'm not the only one who caught that, I see.  It's Voros just doing his "grognards, old school, Gygax, etc are bullshit" schtick.

I do recall a player turning up to our group in the 80s with a character that had 18, 18, 18, 17, 18, 18 stats which he claimed he had rolled.

We killed him off, naturally. :rolleyes:

(The character not the player).

Quote from: CRKrueger;999315I'm not the only one who caught that, I see.  It's Voros just doing his "grognards, old school, Gygax, etc are bullshit" schtick.

I don't even understand why this is an issue for people.

I'm almost contemporaneous with Gronan and I'm fine with people rolling up characters however the fuck they want. 3d6 worked fine in OD&D and it's what I and my friends all used circa 1974-5. But that became unpopular (in my experience) once Greyhawk introduced stat bonuses. After Greyhawk most people used some alternate method for rolling characters to increase the likelihood that a PC would have one or more stats with a positive modifier. Also the growing proliferation of new character classes with stat minimums had a double effect. People wanted to run some of those classes and they needed to satisfy the stat minium. So various alternate methods for rolling up characters tended to proliferate. Rolling stats then assigning as and where the player preferred, 4d6 choose best 3 rolled in order, and some minimum stat total were the methods I recall being most often used.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;999317I do recall a player turning up to our group in the 80s with a character that had 18, 18, 18, 17, 18, 18 stats which he claimed he had rolled.

It's a little known fact that the Cray supercomputers were invented just so that D&D players had sufficient computing power to quickly randomly generate enough characters so they could get the extremely unlikely high stats they wanted.

This is a real example of fake news or what I like to call a faux fact.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998234Monks appeared because the Kung Fu TV show was in reruns, Brian Blume liked the Destroyer books, and Jim Ward thought the song "Kung Fu Fighting" was funny.

It had fuckdiddlydoodahday to do with "world building" or "history."

Always suspected it, but that still doesn't answer what abilities you'd give to the Cisterians;).

Quote from: Dumarest;999079Ah, but does it come with two to six players interested in playing?

No, just like OD&D didn't come with extra imagination for the Referee. What's your point here, really?

I think I should add that Spirit of the 77 to my wishlist, but frankly, I'd probably ditch it and play Feng Shui instead.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;999317I do recall a player turning up to our group in the 80s with a character that had 18, 18, 18, 17, 18, 18 stats which he claimed he had rolled.

We killed him off, naturally. :rolleyes:

(The character not the player).

Good thing you specified which one, I guess:D!

Quote from: Dumarest;999283If someone at my table really wanted to play a paladin that bad, I'd probably just let them have the minimum stats required if they agreed to actually roleplay his belief system. Playing a paladin and sticking to your god's rules and adhering to your alignment shouldn't be easy. I don't really care if you rolled well enough if your heart is set on the challenge. Maybe I'll give you an albatross of some kind to make up for the extra points.

Yeah.  Or maybe I'd dream up some kind of quest you needed to fulfill to become a Paladin, because happening in play is always better.

I've just always really been lucky, I guess, to have players who were good with "the whole point of character creation is to see what we end up with."

Quote from: AsenRG;999329Always suspected it, but that still doesn't answer what abilities you'd give to the Cisterians;).

Now I want to be a silent Trappist monk with drunken boxing style.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;999317I do recall a player turning up to our group in the 80s with a character that had 18, 18, 18, 17, 18, 18 stats which he claimed he had rolled.

We killed him off, naturally. :rolleyes:

(The character not the player).

Wow, punishing him for a series of lucky rolls that, of course, the whole group witnessed!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999336Yeah.  Or maybe I'd dream up some kind of quest you needed to fulfill to become a Paladin, because happening in play is always better.

I've just always really been lucky, I guess, to have players who were good with "the whole point of character creation is to see what we end up with."

I haven't had the problem so my solution is hypothetical, but a plucky young farm boy on a quest to become a paladin is a good way to go. It worked in Star Wars.

Quote from: AsenRG;999329No, just like OD&D didn't come with extra imagination for the Referee. What's your point here, really?

My point is there are plenty of games with few players interested in playing them. Perhaps too subtly expressed, since you leapt to referee imagination which had absolutely no relationship to what I wrote.

Really, I've always liked the BXCMI version of Paladins where you had to hit tenth level before the church will even look at you.  It's one of those places a "prestige class" makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: David Johansen;999368Really, I've always liked the BXCMI version of Paladins where you had to hit tenth level before the church will even look at you.  It's one of those places a "prestige class" makes a lot of sense.

I don't remember there even being paladins in Basic. Which book were they in?

(Then again, we tended to get bored with D&D before double-digit levels...)

It was in Companion D&D.  There were also Avengers for chaotic fighters, Knights for anyone who didn't want to get stuck in with fanatics and Druids for Clerics.

Quote from: David Johansen;999378It was in Companion D&D.  There were also Avengers for chaotic fighters, Knights for anyone who didn't want to get stuck in with fanatics and Druids for Clerics.

   Plus Druidic Knights in DRAGON #177. :) (There's a whole lot of design space in BECMI that got explored in the latter years of the game that no one's really gone back to.)

Everyone, relax.

If it fits your D&D game, then by all means include it!

Quote from: David Johansen;999378It was in Companion D&D.  There were also Avengers for chaotic fighters, Knights for anyone who didn't want to get stuck in with fanatics and Druids for Clerics.

Hmm...I  wonder if we never lasted to Companion levels! Either that or no one pursued those things or the fogs of time have obscured the past.

Quote from: Dumarest;999430Hmm...I  wonder if we never lasted to Companion levels! Either that or no one pursued those things or the fogs of time have obscured the past.

In my group, I think the only things we really used the Companion Set for was the Dominion and Warfare/War Machine rules.

Quote from: Xuc xac;999345Now I want to be a silent Trappist monk with drunken boxing style.

You and me both, brother*, you and me both;)!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999336Yeah.  Or maybe I'd dream up some kind of quest you needed to fulfill to become a Paladin, because happening in play is always better.

I've just always really been lucky, I guess, to have players who were good with "the whole point of character creation is to see what we end up with."

Actually, I'd like anyone to try a quest to become a paladin. Whether he lives or dies through it, it would be worth telling afterwards:D!
As mentioned above, see: Star Wars.

Quote from: Dumarest;999367My point is there are plenty of games with few players interested in playing them. Perhaps too subtly expressed, since you leapt to referee imagination which had absolutely no relationship to what I wrote.

No, I guessed that was what you mean, but it didn't seem relevant:).
Players are just necessary supplies, man. And so is imagination, especially with a system as loose as OD&D;).
Buying a book doesn't guarantee you'd be able to use it. But if you can gather the supplies, knock yourself out!
I guess my refutal was also too subtly expressed:p?

*As an almost irrelevant point, why the fuck the forum refuses to publish the vowels in Xuc xac's name, even when I've gone for Advanced Reply?

Funny how in AD&D, Monks were the most gonzo thing in the game.

Personal thing, but to me the Monk has always felt like 'that kid'.  You know the one, he has to play a Ninja.  No matter what setting, could be a Stone Age, Renaissance or Post-Apoc Zombie game, it's got to have the super sword, the pajamas and its gotta be Japanese.  Accept no imitations and no exceptions.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;999941Personal thing, but to me the Monk has always felt like 'that kid'.  You know the one, he has to play a Ninja.  No matter what setting, could be a Stone Age, Renaissance or Post-Apoc Zombie game, it's got to have the super sword, the pajamas and its gotta be Japanese.  Accept no imitations and no exceptions.

Quick aside: it might be a generational/place-and-time thing, but in my original D&D experience, the monk was  David Carradine's Kwai Chang Caine, and it was the classes in AD&D's Oriental Adventures which got used to make Japanese characters, although the rest is the same.
Y'know, I can get that, but other than the fact that 'that kid' exists, and they will naturally find something to latch onto, there's nothing inherent about either the D&D mystic or the AD&D monk that makes them 'that kid'-ish, so far as I can tell. It's really just a poly-competent class. It's not the best at any one thing but can do them all (has thief skills but worse than thief of equivalent xp, can use all magic items but no spells of one's own, can heal self only and only mildly, can fight but is a glass cannon). That's really the long and short of the class as it appears on the page. Is it perhaps just what we've affixed onto the class that makes it so objectionable?

Thing is, Monks are so embedded into standard D&D these days they don't feel out of place at all to me. Indeed, in my mind's eye I see them as a sort of hybrid between a western Christian Monk that take vows of self discipline, and the Eastern kung fu type.

Quote from: RPGPundit;999937Funny how in AD&D, Monks were the most gonzo thing in the game.

Maybe in your games.

For me, the craziest things in the game always turn out to be the PCs and their schemes.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;998184Another:
Cyberpunk 2020 (again) had two classes that you would ever be: deckers (if you wanted that type of campaign, and there wasn't a whole rest of the party to throw up their hands when the netrunning started), and Solos. The combat advantages that Solos got were so insurmountable, and combat was enough of any non-net game, that you would never not play one unless the entire campaign concept was built around one of the other (such as playing a rockerboy in a campaign built around a touring band).

Man, I hate to say it, but you are seriously doing it wrong.

Without even pulling down my 2020 book to refresh my memory you've got the Nomad who can call up a double dozen chumps to do whatever, and I seem to recall a street-gang Role that had a similar ability, you've got the Corporate AND the Fixer who have more money that God, which opens up all sorts of options for not getting shot in the face. You've got the Cop who can straight up intimidate the fuck out of you with his badge...

Sure, IN COMBAT the Solo's Combat Sense is bad-ass virtually garaunteeing the Solo goes first in combat every time. That's it. Its initiative boosting (plus spotting ambushes, but really that's a sort of back channel initiative boost, now innit?)

And I hate to point this out, but a solo with a high enough Combat Sense 'autowin' initiative reliably is going to have a weakness in actual combat, somewhere, due to shorting his actual combat skills. Yes, yes... specializing in a few skills yadda yadda... but that just compounds that some where in combat that solo is going to be weak... where-ever he didn't specialize mainly.

So if Solos are that utterly dominant you obviously didn't read Uncle Mike's advice AND you've mistakenly played your CP2020 like a crappy version of D&D.   Or in other words, just because you have a hammer doesn't mean everything you see is, in fact, a nail.

Quote from: Voros;998581How long would an evil character be able or willing to keep up the charade and to what end? Lifetime criminals don't tend to bond and spend loads of time with cops.

The obvious real answer is to not create groups with idiotic dynamics that require you to either abandon RPing or lead to PvP.

Actually, I think Kevin Siembeida handled this quite well with his clear definitions of Evil, and demonstrated it in, say, the Mechanoids Book, where one of the more evil NPCs in the setting was flying around doing all sorts of heroic stuff... because as a human he didn't want the human hating bipeds killing off all of humanity... himself included.

D&D uses a somewhat foggier and honestly more supernatural definition of Evil, which is why so many Evil character (PC or NPC) appear to be out of central casting for pulp villians, and thats why you can't imagine them working with a paladin for any length of time... they just gotta DO wicked, man!  Can't rest until they've murdered a baby under the dark of the moon! Which makes the entire alignment chart wonky if you look at evil that way.

Which is one reason why the more recent incarnations of Detect Evil (3E did this I think, but I can't really check off hand), required a supernatural component to the alignment (being a priest of a dark god, demonic pacts, whatever) to really register... though everyone seems to have missed that.

I made enough short-cuts for the sake of brevity that I'd be hard pressed to argue that that wasn't a reasonable response to what I wrote. However, focus on this part: "and combat was enough of any non-net game," and maybe that's where we'll agree or not.

Absolutely a Corp in a suit can probably buy or sell a Solo's existence on a requisition form. They have to sleep sometimes and if the Solo can make a living being a street enforcer, so can the Solos the Corp hires to off them. But PCs, being PCs, controlled by players are probably going to seek out situations where they can use all those fancy combat rules (and pages and pages of gun rules, mostly-combat-centric cybernetics, all backed up by some very 'street samurai are cooler looking that guys in suits artwork). Yes the game is supposed to be about political machinations and who-you-know and all the great stuff that exists in cyberpunk literature, but the level of in-game support for that kind of gaming is very small compared to the amount of material outlining how to best kill each other (it's not unlike Vampire: the Masquerade, where it was supposedly designed to be a game about political intrigue, and the designers were surprised when people looked at the rules they had put in the book and decided it was about fanged superheroes fighting with trenchcoats and katanas).  

And there, once you get to combat (which, again, if the designers had wanted to keep as a small portion of the game, they could have taken steps to encourage), the very specific rules of the game (not least of which being the relative weakness of armor to the weapons and armor-piercing ammo even starting characters will be able to bring to bear, but also the wound-penalties/death-spiral effects) make getting to fire first a very strong, if not insurmountable benefit.

QuoteYes, yes... specializing in a few skills yadda yadda... but that just compounds that some where in combat that solo is going to be weak... where-ever he didn't specialize mainly.

There's always trade-offs. If there weren't there wouldn't be anywhere to spend your XP (or, to make another type of game, you could start the game with all combat skills maxed, and then use all the xp you get to give yourselves whatever other skills you wanted to flesh out the character). However, it is the relative combat value between a non-Solo putting their skills into 2-3 combat skills (and probably whatever their actual job is as well), and the Solo spreads theirs among 3-4 skills, one of which is the initiative/spot boosting skill, and the amazing gulf that is that I am discussing.

QuoteSo if Solos are that utterly dominant you obviously didn't read Uncle Mike's advice AND you've mistakenly played your CP2020 like a crappy version of D&D.

D&D is actually a pretty good analogy. I love D&D, and I like the ideal of what original, LBB w/o expansion D&D was supposed to be. Not least of which are things like after name level it is supposed to be a domain management and/or wargame. Yet D&D is a great example of the designer's intent running headlong into what the audience is going to do with a book that is 90-95% combat rules and very little about running that other part except (switching back to CP) an 'uncle ____'s advice' section telling you what you are supposed to focus on.

I will not disagree that a game where one follows Uncle Mike's advice and is about Corporates/Fixers with more money than God utilizing all sorts of options other than shooting people in the face would in fact be an awesome game. Where I do disagree is believing that any of the three versions of CP I have read, by the rules written in the books, is that game. That game is more the 'ideal Cyperpunk that might have been' in my mind.

Quote from: Spike;1000031Man, I hate to say it, but you are seriously doing it wrong.

Without even pulling down my 2020 book to refresh my memory you've got the Nomad who can call up a double dozen chumps to do whatever, and I seem to recall a street-gang Role that had a similar ability, you've got the Corporate AND the Fixer who have more money that God, which opens up all sorts of options for not getting shot in the face. You've got the Cop who can straight up intimidate the fuck out of you with his badge...

Sure, IN COMBAT the Solo's Combat Sense is bad-ass virtually garaunteeing the Solo goes first in combat every time. That's it. Its initiative boosting (plus spotting ambushes, but really that's a sort of back channel initiative boost, now innit?)

And I hate to point this out, but a solo with a high enough Combat Sense 'autowin' initiative reliably is going to have a weakness in actual combat, somewhere, due to shorting his actual combat skills. Yes, yes... specializing in a few skills yadda yadda... but that just compounds that some where in combat that solo is going to be weak... where-ever he didn't specialize mainly.

So if Solos are that utterly dominant you obviously didn't read Uncle Mike's advice AND you've mistakenly played your CP2020 like a crappy version of D&D.   Or in other words, just because you have a hammer doesn't mean everything you see is, in fact, a nail.

Spot on. Solos are not unstoppable by any means. Sure the "initiative" bonus is very nice (as is the Awareness boost) - but you can mitigate a *lot* of that with the other classes by playing smart, having good gear etc. Do they have an advantage? Sure a small one. But saying they don't fit in the game? Crazytalk

CP2020 is nothing like D&D in play or by conceit. If someone is running it that way - I question their understanding of the genre.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000045I made enough short-cuts for the sake of brevity that I'd be hard pressed to argue that that wasn't a reasonable response to what I wrote. However, focus on this part: "and combat was enough of any non-net game," and maybe that's where we'll agree or not.

Absolutely a Corp in a suit can probably buy or sell a Solo's existence on a requisition form. They have to sleep sometimes and if the Solo can make a living being a street enforcer, so can the Solos the Corp hires to off them. But PCs, being PCs, controlled by players are probably going to seek out situations where they can use all those fancy combat rules (and pages and pages of gun rules, mostly-combat-centric cybernetics, all backed up by some very 'street samurai are cooler looking that guys in suits artwork). Yes the game is supposed to be about political machinations and who-you-know and all the great stuff that exists in cyberpunk literature, but the level of in-game support for that kind of gaming is very small compared to the amount of material outlining how to best kill each other (it's not unlike Vampire: the Masquerade, where it was supposedly designed to be a game about political intrigue, and the designers were surprised when people looked at the rules they had put in the book and decided it was about fanged superheroes fighting with trenchcoats and katanas).  

There is precisely *nothing* in the rules that prevents any character of any class to use the exact same rules in combat or otherwise. One of the huge conceits of CP2020 (and Shadowrun and Interface Zero 2.0 and for that matter, every cyberpunk game I've ever played) is that combat in this genre is super-lethal. CP2020 exemplifies this in order for PC's to really consider how they go about engaging in combat. Murderhoboing in CP2020 will end up with a bunch of dead hobos.

In game support for setting a standard for what gear is available it there in the books. The main book glosses it over, but the Cop Book (Serve and Protect) and the America guidebook (Home of the Brave) detail quite clearly what is available and the rules of society. If you leave the entirety of the gear catalog to being available base on the amount of credits your PC's have... well I don't know what to say. Going to your D&D analogy that's like saying there's a Red Wizards of Thay shop in every city and they're selling whatever is in the DMG for gold.

Enforcement and discretion of that gear you're citing - is up to the GM. If you stick to the conceits and enforce them draconian-style (barring mitigating circumstances) - you'll never have this as a problem. Cops don't like non-cop PC's cybered to the gills and running around with mil-spec implants and heavy weaponry. And yes - using your Vampire analogy - not enforcing the conceits of the game will likewise get your Trenchcoats and Katana - another phenomenon I've never seen at my table.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000045And there, once you get to combat (which, again, if the designers had wanted to keep as a small portion of the game, they could have taken steps to encourage), the very specific rules of the game (not least of which being the relative weakness of armor to the weapons and armor-piercing ammo even starting characters will be able to bring to bear, but also the wound-penalties/death-spiral effects) make getting to fire first a very strong, if not insurmountable benefit.

I dunno... didn't you just spell out, literally, the obvious here? Combat is LETHAL. What better encouragement could there be to realize that your characters are going to be short-lived if you run a gun-bunny game. I've had players cyber themselves up to the HILT. Covered with steel, all limbs (plus two extras) 8-fucking eyes, reinforced muscle and hydraulic rams - cyberimplanted weapons, .01 Humanity left on them. Complete killing machines... get killed with a .45 in the mouth from another PC tired of his shit.  

There is no way to be unkillable. That's the point. Engaging in escalating conflict *makes* you the monster of your D&D world where everyone can have a +3 weapon and be rewarded for killing the killer.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000045There's always trade-offs. If there weren't there wouldn't be anywhere to spend your XP (or, to make another type of game, you could start the game with all combat skills maxed, and then use all the xp you get to give yourselves whatever other skills you wanted to flesh out the character). However, it is the relative combat value between a non-Solo putting their skills into 2-3 combat skills (and probably whatever their actual job is as well), and the Solo spreads theirs among 3-4 skills, one of which is the initiative/spot boosting skill, and the amazing gulf that is that I am discussing.

Which again makes me ask: what kind of game are you running? As a non-solo you don't *need* 2-3 combat skills to kill someone well. You only need 1. Let's be clear here - Solos *are* designed for combat. So why would a non-solo *need* to have more than 1 good combat skill at the start? What kind of campaign demands that non-Solos be present in a game where multiple combat skills are required? Killing someone in CP2020 is *ridiculously* easy. That a Solo can kill you 4 different ways doesn't make the class a problem when anyone can kill you within reason with their single skill. And should someone blink an eye when a trained professional killer kills a non-professional killer? Probably not.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000045D&D is actually a pretty good analogy. I love D&D, and I like the ideal of what original, LBB w/o expansion D&D was supposed to be. Not least of which are things like after name level it is supposed to be a domain management and/or wargame. Yet D&D is a great example of the designer's intent running headlong into what the audience is going to do with a book that is 90-95% combat rules and very little about running that other part except (switching back to CP) an 'uncle ____'s advice' section telling you what you are supposed to focus on.

I will not disagree that a game where one follows Uncle Mike's advice and is about Corporates/Fixers with more money than God utilizing all sorts of options other than shooting people in the face would in fact be an awesome game. Where I do disagree is believing that any of the three versions of CP I have read, by the rules written in the books, is that game. That game is more the 'ideal Cyperpunk that might have been' in my mind.

The rules of a game don't make the game. The way you use them with the conceits of your setting/genre are what matter. D&D does have that exact problem - and you're literally saying the same thing (correctly) for CP2020 - what prevents it from being the game you think it should be is the GM enforcing those conceits at the table and making those things engaging.

Quote from: tenbones;1000078The rules of a game don't make the game. The way you use them with the conceits of your setting/genre are what matter. D&D does have that exact problem - and you're literally saying the same thing (correctly) for CP2020 - what prevents it from being the game you think it should be is the GM enforcing those conceits at the table and making those things engaging.

Well chalk that up to different (thread) goals. Because I thought that one of the conceits of this thread was that we were talking about the rules of the game[. If your premise is strictly that making [D&D or CP], "the game you think it should be is the GM enforcing those conceits at the table and making those things engaging," then we are in agreement. That's what I do for my D&D games and what I have done for my CP games.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000098Well chalk that up to different (thread) goals. Because I thought that one of the conceits of this thread was that we were talking about the rules of the game[. If your premise is strictly that making [D&D or CP], "the game you think it should be is the GM enforcing those conceits at the table and making those things engaging," then we are in agreement. That's what I do for my D&D games and what I have done for my CP games.

Okay so here's my original post

QuotePost D&D 2e - The Fighter

3e- most of the classes and PrC's outside of the core book.
4e - all of them.
5e - Warlock. Eldritch Knight, Sorcerer, Druid.

Knives out, boys. Let's do this.

Sure light on details. But all my choices were not just mechanical, but they were mechanical as expressed in the game as a conceit. For me D&D is its own brand of fantasy. It has evolved to include a lot of stuff that I consider for the core-mechanics and assumptions things that don't belong strictly as a "class" in the game. This doesn't mean those things don't have a place - they could be folded into another class, or be setting specific. etc.

As it pertains to the Solo, I liken it to my position about the Fighter. Fighters in Basic/1e/2e have a definite place in D&D. They represent the "fighting man" of various permutations. In 3e - with the advent of Prestige Classes, and endless splitting of hairs - the need for the strict fighter as a class, imo, was rendered moot. You could fulfill his primary roll in a number of different ways that did not overtly affect the game (which I never liked - it took me years to realize they neutered the Fighter because I'm a stubborn bastard). The fact is - the bloat of later editions of D&D mechanically eclipsed the primary reasons for Fighters to even exist. I'd argue 5e still has this issue - though it's not nearly as bad as 3e/4e and I could arguably let it ride... (but not enough to run a 5e game - but that's not the Fighter's fault).

The Solo on the other hand - never quite hits that place. The conceits of CP2020 are that Solos represent professional soldiers/assassins/killers etc. Other classes can potentially fight as well as one, but due to the nature of the system, they still stand out as having an advantage in combat (intiative plus the ability to notice things potentially that lets them avoid/initiate combat). But that conceit is appropriate for what they're supposed to represent. And it does this without denying other classes the ability to compete - but without negating a fundamental premise what sets a true Solo apart from a skilled .

Where it comes to the GM enforcing these conceits - is where the rubber hits the road, which we both agree on. There is *no* amount of enforcement of my examples short of me disallowing or downplaying other aspects of the game that justifies the existence of those classes other than my own stubbornness. If I run a 3e game and someone wants to play a Fighter - other classes will inhabit that same space with relatively equal ease unless I start insulating elements for them.

I don't have to do that for Solos - they're kept in check by gear and in-game social enforcement. It doesn't matter if a Solo is a killing machine. What matters is how they conduct themselves in the act of play, because in CP - anyone can be - and will be - killed if they prove to be "out of control" simply by the social aspects of the game. If one doesn't enforce those things - well either you're playing a very localized form the game (maybe you're in the Wastelands outside of civilization? Or it takes place where authority doesn't have a lot of control) or one's understanding of the genre is not in line with the assumptions of the game itself. Which is fine too, if that's your cuppa.

Hmm. I can't say I would dispute any of that. But then again, my main problem here with both you and Spike was figuring out where you think we're disagreeing about anything in particular (and it sure seems like you both think that, what with telling me I'm doing it wrong or don't understand the genre).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000453Hmm. I can't say I would dispute any of that. But then again, my main problem here with both you and Spike was figuring out where you think we're disagreeing about anything in particular (and it sure seems like you both think that, what with telling me I'm doing it wrong or don't understand the genre).

I think we agree on 99% of it. I'm just putting it in context where you said the Solo class doesn't belong in CP2020. That's all. No worries.


NOW FIGHT ME!!!! BLARGGH!!!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1770[/ATTACH]

Quote from: tenbones;1000468I think we agree on 99% of it. I'm just putting it in context where you said the Solo class doesn't belong in CP2020. That's all.

Doesn't belong to the level of a have a dislike of a specific confluence of specific rules. Same (and lesser than) the netrunner (which I think everyone agrees thematically belongs in CP). Clearly we are using the threads premise for different purposes.

QuoteNOW FIGHT ME!!!! BLARGGH!!!

Has it not been well established in the however many years I've been here that I don't bother with that?

The solo is only dominant in combat in white box one on one fights. Even then his advantages relies on one hit kills... Which fails at least ten percent of the time due to dicer mechanics. The more participants the less advantages he has due to the huge target he becomes afterhis first attack.

Compounding the problem is having every dangerous opponent and random guard be a solo, forcing players to compensate...


Your turn sirrah

Quote from: Spike;1000031So if Solos are that utterly dominant you obviously didn't read Uncle Mike's advice AND you've mistakenly played your CP2020 like a crappy version of D&D.   Or in other words, just because you have a hammer doesn't mean everything you see is, in fact, a nail.

Now listen up, you primitive screwheads...:D

Quote from: Dumarest;1000028Maybe in your games.

For me, the craziest things in the game always turn out to be the PCs and their schemes.

Fair enough. But I meant in terms of it being the most gonzo thing in the basic system itself. A total anachronism in an otherwise medieval-fantasy themed game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1001120Fair enough. But I meant in terms of it being the most gonzo thing in the basic system itself. A total anachronism in an otherwise medieval-fantasy themed game.

Monks were actually common in my old campaign. This was likely due to the fact that three of us were also in the same Kung Fu class.

If I'm running a game in say, the Forgotten Realms, which has a Japanese/Chinese analog, I'm kinda OK with the Monk.  As long as the PCs are from, or trained by, people who come from Kara-Tur.  But in most other settings, that don't have anything remotely like that, I can't stand the class.

Quote from: Krimson;1001139Monks were actually common in my old campaign. This was likely due to the fact that three of us were also in the same Kung Fu class.

That actually makes it extra awesome and gonzo.

I dont mind monks at all. Maybe some hermit guy taught himself, maybe he belongs to some unique school up in the isolated mountains and he's on a wanderer's journey. With elves, dwarves, dragons, beholders, talking swords, etc - stretching to accomodate monks isnt a big deal for me. Then again I also dont mind mixing English medieval with roman ancients, vikings and blackpowder weapons. :DD

Quote from: Dumarest;1001182That actually makes it extra awesome and gonzo.

Or extra-dorky. You'd need a group photo to know. Because you're thinking it probably looks something like this:

(http://www.kongssiulumpai.com/images/kungfuclass.jpg)

But it might look more like this:

(http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/daniel-ninja_2.jpg)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1003194Or extra-dorky. You'd need a group photo to know. Because you're thinking it probably looks something like this:

(http://www.kongssiulumpai.com/images/kungfuclass.jpg)l

But it might look more like this:

(http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/daniel-ninja_2.jpg)

If you think the top photo is the cool one,  you're not as gonzo as you imagine.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1001164If I'm running a game in say, the Forgotten Realms, which has a Japanese/Chinese analog, I'm kinda OK with the Monk.  As long as the PCs are from, or trained by, people who come from Kara-Tur.  But in most other settings, that don't have anything remotely like that, I can't stand the class.

What about a character who studies their teaching at a library such as Candle Keep or at a place of worship like the Monastery of the Yellow Rose? Not exactly Kara-Tur decent but has philosophies and principals of a similar nature? I ask because there was a character in the R.A. Salvatore novels The Cleric Quintet who studied all the various monk forms from scrolls at the Edificant Library and thought that hook was pretty cool.

I kind of wonder why anyone thinks a fantasy world with elves and hobbits should only have Asian-influenced martial arts in their fake Asia analogue...does it strain your suspension of disbelief more than the idea that anyone capable of creating magic potions would sell them at the corner magic shop right next to the soda jerk?

Its the accents.  

They go from "Ah louve ya, Ahlwahys Halv."  (either brave heart of baseket ball) to
"Boords don hit back." Enter the dragon.  It's hard.

Quote from: Dumarest;1003326I kind of wonder why anyone thinks a fantasy world with elves and hobbits should only have Asian-influenced martial arts in their fake Asia analogue...does it strain your suspension of disbelief more than the idea that anyone capable of creating magic potions would sell them at the corner magic shop right next to the soda jerk?

I don't see a problem with Martial Artists.

I just prefer that they have "Fighter" written on their character sheet.

Quote from: TJS;1003344I don't see a problem with Martial Artists.

I just prefer that they have "Fighter" written on their character sheet.

Nah, "Fighting Man" is where it's at.

Quote from: Batman;1003303What about a character who studies their teaching at a library such as Candle Keep or at a place of worship like the Monastery of the Yellow Rose? Not exactly Kara-Tur decent but has philosophies and principals of a similar nature? I ask because there was a character in the R.A. Salvatore novels The Cleric Quintet who studied all the various monk forms from scrolls at the Edificant Library and thought that hook was pretty cool.

Nope.  Simply because the Western Analogue that is the Sword Coast doesn't have the same self-enlightenment self-improvement philosophy that would promote the idea that ones body is stronger than magic or steel.  Kara-Tur and it's Far East analogues do.

Quote from: TJS;1003344I don't see a problem with Martial Artists.

I just prefer that they have "Fighter" written on their character sheet.

Personally, me too.  If you REALLY want to go Gonzo with Martial Arts, make the Fighter/Fighting Man your core for it.

Quote from: Dumarest;1003326I kind of wonder why anyone thinks a fantasy world with elves and hobbits should only have Asian-influenced martial arts in their fake Asia analogue...does it strain your suspension of disbelief more than the idea that anyone capable of creating magic potions would sell them at the corner magic shop right next to the soda jerk?

Which one strains my suspension of disbelief more isn't really relevant since the answer for both is "way too much."

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and nominate the ranger -- not because an agile and moderately-armored wilderness warrior feels out of place in the game, but because D&D rangers always, and to me inexplicably, gain access to druid spells and class abilities. IMO one of the great innovations in Pathfinder was the "Skirmisher" archetype, which allowed you to shitcan the makes-no-goddamn-sense spellcasting abilities in favor of various "hunter tricks" that are much more in keeping with the archetypical role the ranger class is supposed to occupy.

Quote from: Dumarest;1003326I kind of wonder why anyone thinks a fantasy world with elves and hobbits should only have Asian-influenced martial arts in their fake Asia analogue...does it strain your suspension of disbelief more than the idea that anyone capable of creating magic potions would sell them at the corner magic shop right next to the soda jerk?

I think the issue is more when the setting doesn't have an Asian analogue. I loved OA but never cared for the monk in other settings.

Quote from: Voros;1003590I think the issue is more when the setting doesn't have an Asian analogue. I loved OA but never cared for the monk in other settings.

Bingo!

The other issue I have with a lot of the 'sub' classes is how limited they are.

For example the Barbarian, now admittedly it's not just the Vikings that have those types of berserkers, the Jaguar Warriors of... I forget, have the same thing concept, but the issue is that it's still a warrior from an uncivilized area with anger management issues.  It's a very narrow archetype, whereas the Fighter (Or fighting man) can be many things, Knight, Mercenary, Master Archer, Martial Artist, Gladiator, and many other concepts with the same theme.  In D&D Land, even Wizards have AT LEAST 9 options, one dedicated to a particular school of 'Magic'.  Clerics have a myriad of faiths which can help inform the type of combat style.  And the Rogue?  Nearly limitless in options.

Rangers are also another issue, Paladin can be somewhat wider, but if it's constrained by Alignment (As in Lawful Good only.)

But the Monk is the most limited, in my book.  It's all based on magical Shaolin Monk Philosophy.

Quote from: Achaerone;1003570I'm going to go way out on a limb here and nominate the ranger -- not because an agile and moderately-armored wilderness warrior feels out of place in the game, but because D&D rangers always, and to me inexplicably, gain access to druid spells and class abilities. IMO one of the great innovations in Pathfinder was the "Skirmisher" archetype, which allowed you to shitcan the makes-no-goddamn-sense spellcasting abilities in favor of various "hunter tricks" that are much more in keeping with the archetypical role the ranger class is supposed to occupy.

That archetypal role is "Aragorn" not lightly armoured skirmishing fighter.  If you base a class on the latter you're just taking stuff away from the fighter.

Quote from: TJS;1003631That archetypal role is "Aragorn" not lightly armoured skirmishing fighter.  If you base a class on the latter you're just taking stuff away from the fighter.

Aragorn didn't have spells and I don't remember much description of his armor. He was, I'll admit, Hell on Wheels in melee. The type of fighting he and the other rangers seemed to be doing prior to the opening of tLotR was hit and run.

Quote from: TJS;1003631That archetypal role is "Aragorn" not lightly armoured skirmishing fighter.  If you base a class on the latter you're just taking stuff away from the fighter.

Aragorn was not a part-druid: he did not have an animal companion, and with the debatable exception of healing Éowyn in the House of Healing he did not cast spells. He was, for the entirety of the first book and most of the second, a lightly armored skirmishing fighter who was really good at woodcraft.

1E rangers have spells largely because that was a way to model extraordinary abilities in IE.

They didn't get "animal companions" in any kind of modern sense, although they could eventually get animal followers.  They didn't get any restrictions on arms or armour.  Like Aragorn they could put on heavy armour and charge in battle mounted if the situation called for it, just like fighters could stow their plate and wear light armour if the situation called for that.  It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure Rangers got no benefits for forgoing heavy armour or shields.

They also weren't part Druid.  Rangers being required to be good* and Druids being required to be True Neutral - they weren't even necessarily on the same side.

There's been lots of discussion of the original Ranger class on the net over the years and at this point it seems pretty indisputable that it was pretty much an attempt to model Aragorn.

*the loss of the alignment restriction probably did more than anything else to make the role of the ranger class unclear - AD&D Rangers knew they were Rangers - it meant something in the game world.  From 3e onwards the class just became a template to apply to a character.

Quote from: TJS;10036611E rangers have spells largely because that was a way to model extraordinary abilities in IE.

1E rangers got access to both druid and magic-user spells. The PHB specifically characterized them as spellcasters. It said absolutely nothing about this merely being a way to model nonmagical "extraordinary abilities," and if that was the case why would they have access to spells like Barkskin, Tree Shape, and Warp Wood? I must have missed the part in LotR when Aragorn turned into a tree.

QuoteThey didn't get "animal companions" in any kind of modern sense, although they could eventually get animal followers.

To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.

QuoteThey didn't get any restrictions on arms or armour.  Like Aragorn they could put on heavy armour and charge in battle mounted if the situation called for it, just like fighters could stow their plate and wear light armour if the situation called for that.  It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure Rangers got no benefits for forgoing heavy armour or shields.

As early as 2E rangers were incented to wear studded leather or lighter armor.

QuoteThey also weren't part Druid.  Rangers being required to be good* and Druids being required to be True Neutral - they weren't even necessarily on the same side.

Access to druid spells = part druid. The alignment restriction is yet another reason why this made no goddamn sense: druids would lose all their class abilities if they deviated from true neutral alignment, yet for some unexplained reason druidical deities were much more chill about granting spells to good rangers.

QuoteThere's been lots of discussion of the original Ranger class on the net over the years and at this point it seems pretty indisputable that it was pretty much an attempt to model Aragorn.

It fails.

Quote from: Achaerone;10036661E rangers got access to both druid and magic-user spells. The PHB specifically characterized them as spellcasters. It said absolutely nothing about this merely being a way to model nonmagical "extraordinary abilities," and if that was the case why would they have access to spells like Barkskin, Tree Shape, and Warp Wood? I must have missed the part in LotR when Aragorn turned into a tree.

He probably wasn't high enough level.  Perhaps he'll do that in the sequel.

QuoteAccess to druid spells = part druid. The alignment restriction is yet another reason why this made no goddamn sense: druids would lose all their class abilities if they deviated from true neutral alignment, yet for some unexplained reason druidical deities were much more chill about granting spells to good rangers.

I'd suggest you're over-thinking it.

Really with 5E it would have made more sense to have made Rangers and Paladins (and probably Barbarians as well) into Fighter archetypes/rather than separate classes.

But then it would also have made more sense in 3E for them to be prestige classes.

WOTC keep inventing ways to logically and smoothly reduce the number of core classes without losing key historical character options and then keep not doing that.

Quote from: TJS;10036611E rangers have spells largely because that was a way to model extraordinary abilities in IE.

This seems to be the case. If there had been non-weapon proficiencies back in 1975, rangers would likely have gotten herbalism and tracking for free instead of spells. But there weren't so they didn't.

Quote from: Achaerone;10036661E rangers got access to both druid and magic-user spells. The PHB specifically characterized them as spellcasters. It said absolutely nothing about this merely being a way to model nonmagical "extraordinary abilities," and if that was the case why would they have access to spells like Barkskin, Tree Shape, and Warp Wood? I must have missed the part in LotR when Aragorn turned into a tree.

It said absolutely nothing about it merely being a way to model nonmagical extraordinary abilities, but it also said absolutely nothing about it being anything one way or another. Have the designers ever been all that good at communicating their 'why's? We have to guess at the whys because that's all we can do.

As to rangers getting Tree Shape when Aragorn never did in LotR, there are multiple potential explanations

• druidic spellcasting was simply a overly broad-net solution that doesn't match precisely the more narrow list of reqs.
• being able to hide by appearing as a tree seemed like a general 'good tactical woodman combatant' ability that ever-so-vaguely sounded like something that Aragorn (or an Aragorn analogue) 'would do,' even if he never did do so in the books, and that the spell actually makes you become a tree is just reading too much into it being a spell.
• By then, rangers had deviated from their origins enough that they had become their own thing, and no longer had to be 1:1 analogues to Aragorn.
• plenty more I'm not thinking of

QuoteAs early as 2E rangers were incented to wear studded leather or lighter armor.

For the most part only if they wanted to use the fighting two-handed thing. And that seems, by all accounts, to be a completely made-from-whole-cloth contamination of the ranger idea by a drow special feature through the vector of a single D&D-novel character.

Regardless, while it is easy to think of them as closely related temporally, the introduction of rangers and the introduction of 2e rangers were 14 years apart, or a then-15 year history of the published game.  

QuoteIt fails.

Then it fails.

Ranger may have started as being inspired by Aragorn, but it very quickly became its own thing. Already in 1e, they're picking up druidic & arcane magic as they level up. It seems to me to make perfect sense that a loner wilderness-warrior type would pick up druidic magic. The multiverse is practically humming with the stuff in D&D, surely if the hippie tree-huggers of the game are picking up how to cure wounds and summon up brambles, an enterprising fellow with a knack for it might pick up a few tricks along the way.

2e rangers needed to wear light armor to use Hide In Shadows, IIRC.

Paladin & Ranger are just fine not being subclasses of Fighter.

Monks are my favorite, but they always confused me as to their place, until d&d became a lot more obviously kitchen sink.

Shadowrun had that one tribal archetype with no cyberwear. Always seemed graphically out of place. Pretty sure this was in the 1e days.

I only posted in this thread to defend the honor of Cyberpunk, and because someone literally asked for an argument, and I'm always up for a friendly duel!

Mostly because the entire topic is one big exercise in 'You're playing it wrong.'


Up next, a new and exciting thread on how rolling the dice sucks all the Role out of Playing. Seriously, you guys, you've never heard such a brilliant topic!

Quote from: TJS;1003668Really with 5E it would have made more sense to have made Rangers and Paladins (and probably Barbarians as well) into Fighter archetypes/rather than separate classes.

But then it would also have made more sense in 3E for them to be prestige classes.

WOTC keep inventing ways to logically and smoothly reduce the number of core classes without losing key historical character options and then keep not doing that.

Yes, especially that last sentence.  The reason that all these guys have spells in the first place is because when the class was first invented, that was the easy way to model them. It's the game equivalent of the old tale about the lady who always shaved the end off of the roast.  When asked why, she says that's how she was taught to cook it.  They go ask her mom.  She says the same thing.  They ask the grandmother why she did it that way.  "Because the roast was too long to fit in the pan."

Quote from: TJS;1003668Really with 5E it would have made more sense to have made Rangers and Paladins (and probably Barbarians as well) into Fighter archetypes/rather than separate classes.

But then it would also have made more sense in 3E for them to be prestige classes.

WOTC keep inventing ways to logically and smoothly reduce the number of core classes without losing key historical character options and then keep not doing that.

If we are going to be logical, I think there should be a slot for someone who had fighter training, in a militia, as a conscript, in a bandit gang, etc. but whose life had room for a way to make a living or even for another minor set of useful adventuring skills and a different slot for those who trained from their youth to be a knight, samurai, Lakota or Cheyenne Dog soldier, longbowman or whatever fits the scenario and that the latter would have no other career but would have an advantage in combat.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1004019If we are going to be logical, I think there should be a slot for someone who had fighter training, in a militia, as a conscript, in a bandit gang, etc. but whose life had room for a way to make a living or even for another minor set of useful adventuring skills and a different slot for those who trained from their youth to be a knight, samurai, Lakota or Cheyenne Dog soldier, longbowman or whatever fits the scenario and that the latter would have no other career but would have an advantage in combat.

Or... and this is a CRAZY IDEA... we could just design a game that didn't define every character as some restrictive, all encompassing class!

Ha, I kid. That would NEVER work.

Quote from: Spike;1004021Or... and this is a CRAZY IDEA... we could just design a game that didn't define every character as some restrictive, all encompassing class!

Ha, I kid. That would NEVER work.

And now we see why I have difficulty playing d&d nowadays :)

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1004019If we are going to be logical, I think there should be a slot for someone who had fighter training, in a militia, as a conscript, in a bandit gang, etc. but whose life had room for a way to make a living or even for another minor set of useful adventuring skills and a different slot for those who trained from their youth to be a knight, samurai, Lakota or Cheyenne Dog soldier, longbowman or whatever fits the scenario and that the latter would have no other career but would have an advantage in combat.

Quote from: Spike;1004021Or... and this is a CRAZY IDEA... we could just design a game that didn't define every character as some restrictive, all encompassing class!

Ha, I kid. That would NEVER work.

That's sort of the problem.  I'm against a game with classes putting out character options that end up with results that are basically the same as the character in the point buy game who puts absolutely all their points into combat skills and has absolutely no other functional abilities whatsoever.  A class based system should be able to avoid this kind of optimisation arms race.

Quote from: TJS;1004136That's sort of the problem.  I'm against a game with classes putting out character options that end up with results that are basically the same as the character in the point buy game who puts absolutely all their points into combat skills and has absolutely no other functional abilities whatsoever.  A class based system should be able to avoid this kind of optimisation arms race.

Or, you know, you could just let players play the characters they want to play instead of worrying about if they're enjoying being bloodthirsty killers just a little too much.  Just a thought.





Its funny because I was just having this conversation about Solos in Cyberpunk. If you are having an issue with everyone playing Solos to I-Win combat, maybe stop making combat the only solution to problems, and stop trying to make 'bad guys' be such awesome threats that combat optimization is the only way to survive?

I generally don't have an issue in my game groups with too much combat optimization... not after the first few sessions... as players start to realize that being able to... I dunno... fly a starship, say, is much more important than being able to shoot an NPC in the face.  Face shooting isn't so much a bad way to play (in my games, but it does tend to be optional), but I long ago gave up the idea of trying to 'arms race' my NPCs, so they tend to be realistic rather than 'anti-PC' level threats.  As a GM I can always WIN escalation conflicts, but if I DO win escalation conflicts, I don't have any more players... so why even start?

Quote from: Spike;1004140I generally don't have an issue in my game groups with too much combat optimization... not after the first few sessions... as players start to realize that being able to... I dunno... fly a starship, say, is much more important than being able to shoot an NPC in the face.  Face shooting isn't so much a bad way to play (in my games, but it does tend to be optional), but I long ago gave up the idea of trying to 'arms race' my NPCs, so they tend to be realistic rather than 'anti-PC' level threats.  As a GM I can always WIN escalation conflicts, but if I DO win escalation conflicts, I don't have any more players... so why even start?

It starts, like so many bad things in life, with someone having a profound insecurity about penis size.

Quote from: Bren;1004143It starts, like so many bad things in life, with someone having a profound insecurity about penis size.

Look... I'm sorry.... I do try not to blot out the sun when I pee... its just so embarrassing!

In June I hurt my right shoulder.  I couldn't lift more than 5 pounds with my right hand.

It was hard to learn to pee left-handed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004148In June I hurt my right shoulder.  I couldn't lift more than 5 pounds with my right hand.

It was hard to learn to pee left-handed.

Ouch, if that happened to me I'd be screwed.  I need both hands.

Quote from: Spike;1004021Or... and this is a CRAZY IDEA... we could just design a game that didn't define every character as some restrictive, all encompassing class!

Ha, I kid. That would NEVER work.

Of course that works. I've played lots of games without classes and some of them were quite good. However, the subject at hand was "classes that." So, I thought I'd talk about the subject at hand. Games with classes work too.

I remember an early RuneQuest campaign that I was playing in and we were talking about the game and the rules, etc. and my friend Simon pointed at the character sheets in front of the players and said "fighter with some spells,"  "Cleric who uses a spear," "fighter with some spells" and then "fighter without any spells" and "wilderness scout with some spells, a Ranger," which was his character. And, you know, he was right. He loved that campaign but he was pointing out that if you are running adventurers in a pre-gunpowder fantasy setting and you don't have classes, the characters you create are going to resemble characters in a class-based system because you need people to fill those roles.

Games with classes work fine as long as you accept classes and go along for the ride. If I sign up for D&D, I don't moan about how my fighter can't cast spells. If I want a fighter who can cast spells, I just don't play D&D then.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1004185Ouch, if that happened to me I'd be screwed.  I need both hands.

* Orson Welles slow clap *

Quote from: Dumarest;1004197Games with classes work fine as long as you accept classes and go along for the ride. If I sign up for D&D, I don't moan about how my fighter can't cast spells. If I want a fighter who can cast spells, I just don't play D&D then.

Hush, you and your "being reasonable."

Quote from: Spike;1004140Or, you know, you could just let players play the characters they want to play instead of worrying about if they're enjoying being bloodthirsty killers just a little too much.  Just a thought.

Or you could ask questions if you don't understand a point and not make stupid fucking assumptions.

Just a thought.

Quote from: TJS;1004211Or you could ask questions if you don't understand a point and not make stupid fucking assumptions.

Just a thought.

Where is the fun in that?

I applaud Dungeon Masters who limit the classes and races for their campaign.

I much prefer a focused campaign. I find the play-anything-hodge-podge to be too often overly generic.

Back in 2e, I played a terrific Dwarf-Only AD&D campaign that was tremendously fun, clearly enhanced by the limitations on chargen.

Quote from: Spike;1004140Its funny because I was just having this conversation about Solos in Cyberpunk. If you are having an issue with everyone playing Solos to I-Win combat, maybe stop making combat the only solution to problems, and stop trying to make 'bad guys' be such awesome threats that combat optimization is the only way to survive?

I generally don't have an issue in my game groups with too much combat optimization... not after the first few sessions... as players start to realize that being able to... I dunno... fly a starship, say, is much more important than being able to shoot an NPC in the face.  Face shooting isn't so much a bad way to play (in my games, but it does tend to be optional), but I long ago gave up the idea of trying to 'arms race' my NPCs, so they tend to be realistic rather than 'anti-PC' level threats.  As a GM I can always WIN escalation conflicts, but if I DO win escalation conflicts, I don't have any more players... so why even start?

I remember when my players realized that all attributes in my Fates Worse Than Death game were almost equally important to survival in combat. They started calling 10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10 "the optimized spread":).
And yes, the point about "realistic skills, not anti-PC skills" also was part of it.
 

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1004193Of course that works. I've played lots of games without classes and some of them were quite good. However, the subject at hand was "classes that." So, I thought I'd talk about the subject at hand. Games with classes work too.

I remember an early RuneQuest campaign that I was playing in and we were talking about the game and the rules, etc. and my friend Simon pointed at the character sheets in front of the players and said "fighter with some spells,"  "Cleric who uses a spear," "fighter with some spells" and then "fighter without any spells" and "wilderness scout with some spells, a Ranger," which was his character. And, you know, he was right. He loved that campaign but he was pointing out that if you are running adventurers in a pre-gunpowder fantasy setting and you don't have classes, the characters you create are going to resemble characters in a class-based system because you need people to fill those roles.

Resemble, yes, if you mix and match the classes. Many if not most class games don't allow that;).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1004231I applaud Dungeon Masters who limit the classes and races for their campaign.

I much prefer a focused campaign. I find the play-anything-hodge-podge to be too often overly generic.

Back in 2e, I played a terrific Dwarf-Only AD&D campaign that was tremendously fun, clearly enhanced by the limitations on chargen.

I agree on the "races" and I think limiting the classes might be a good idea. The fact that games like the various versions of D&D (and my own Glory Road Roleplay)  give us this menu of non-Human species we can include in our games does not mean we must include all of them. I have run a campaign with only Human PCs in a world with most of the other types around but not as PCs and a campaign in a setting with only Humans. I also ran a campaign focused on a Hobbit street-gang in a Human city.

As for classes, if I were running 5e, I would not use the Barbarian class. Tribal fighters are fighters.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1004231I applaud Dungeon Masters who limit the classes and races for their campaign.

I much prefer a focused campaign. I find the play-anything-hodge-podge to be too often overly generic.

Back in 2e, I played a terrific Dwarf-Only AD&D campaign that was tremendously fun, clearly enhanced by the limitations on chargen.

Thank you, I accept your praise.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1890[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Dumarest;999114Fortunately it was nearly impossible to roll the needed scores and achieve the needed levels to become a hard so it was always a moot point when I used to play AD&D. You were better off playing a fighter and strapping on a lute  and calling yourself a bard or minstrel or whatever.

More importantly, just about anyone who rolls four 15s, a 12 and a 10 will almost certainly use those stats for a ranger or a multi-classed elf/dwarf/gnome.

Quote from: Spike;1004140Or, you know, you could just let players play the characters they want to play instead of worrying about if they're enjoying being bloodthirsty killers just a little too much.  Just a thought.

I've done skill-based systems exclusively for 35 years now.  And the number of times people have reacted with "But what if they choose to play THAT?????" horror ... eeesh.  (Certainly about ten times as often as anyone designs Johnny One-Note characters.)

The way I deal with this dreadful syndrome is threefold: (a) I explain that in my campaign, a great deal of action takes place outside of combat, and a combat-only character is going to be up the creek 80% of the time; (b) all the same, I let people design to their own tastes; and (c) they either swing with it or trade out when they get bored, the end.