Quote from: enelsonCal -

Do you think your idea of minimal classes to limit "skill creep" would work in other genres? Say space opera?

Looking at Star Wars, what are the archetypes if distilled to the their essence?

   Heroes/Villains - Bounty Hunters (Boba), Smuggler (Han), Senator (Leia), Hot Shot Pilot (Luke)
   Jedi - Obi-Wan, Darth, Luke (later)

Thanks!

Eric

Actually I'd say it boil down to jedi and adventurer, simple as that.  I think it's a pretty close parallel.

But then Star Wars draws on deep wellsprings of trad fantasy, to its benefit.

Generally speaking, isn't it nice how the semester is pretty much over?

Other than that, the observation re. skills, which I got out of some Old Geezer post IIRC, has been one of the deepest insights of my online gaming experience.

That said, Cali... aren't you just saying this coz you're really a Conan/Kull/TFT kind of person? Arduin had lots of classes/races with special abilities, no? If variety is part of the gonzo, then doesn't the gonzo get lost once it's about Fighting Men/Wizards only?

If a youngster like me is allowed to chime in:

It´s stupid to pull out the cleric and thief.

Why?

Combined arms.
D&D is (among loads of other things) about combined arms (or the trivialized idea of combined arms that wargamers have) transponed to fantasy.

Classes are represantations of different armed forces and their respective stone-paper-scissor qualities.

While there is definitely some truth in the skill creep problem, it´s not big an can easily be vindicated.

If you go along the lines of Sword & Sorcery, then you´ll only play Fighters. Cause the Wizards are evil guys!

jesus, you mad prussian, it's Rock-Paper-Scissors

I'm curious then - how do you see the evolution into 3.5 wherein anyone can take the Move Silently skill.  Is this a support of the theory in that the inexorable slide happened? Or could you look at it as a way to avoid having Thief/Rogue as a class in the long run (yeah, I'm a fighter, but I can move silently and disable devices)?

I guess I'm wondering if Wizard + Warrior + Skills is a bad approach, or is it the quantification of the Skill aspect that draws your ire?

Or maybe I'm just missing the point - in which case I apologize.

Quote from: James J SkachI guess I'm wondering if Wizard + Warrior + Skills is a bad approach, or is it the quantification of the Skill aspect that draws your ire?

That's how True 20 works isn't it?  Or have I got that mixed up?

Quote from: BalbinusThat's how True 20 works isn't it?  Or have I got that mixed up?

I'm not sure.  I guess I'm just extrapolating.  I don't think D&D will ever get rid of the Thief/Rogue class as it's one of the "sacred cows" to which people are always referring.

But I'm thinking it's a step closer. What if I just took a Fighter, and then removed the penalties for getting cross class skills (as the "traditional thief skills" are class skills for Rogues, but cross class for Fighters), I could essentially ignore the Rogue class altogether with just a minor shift.

If that's true, then it could be seen as both the symptom and cure of the inexorable slide toward a skill based system - looked at askew, anyway.

And so my question as there seemed to be, in the OP, a bit of a desire not to have to quantify non-combat, non-magic tasks.

Warriors, Wizards and Warrior-Wizards? Sounds an awful lot like Tunnels & Trolls...

Quote from: SosthenesWarriors, Wizards and Warrior-Wizards? Sounds an awful lot like Tunnels & Trolls...

Check out post 3

Quote from: BalbinusThat's how True 20 works isn't it?  Or have I got that mixed up?

Yep, the three roles are Warrior/Expert/Adept.

If you want to create something like a D&D Ranger or Cleric then you multiclass. It's a simple system that works very well.

Quote from: SettembriniIf a youngster like me is allowed to chime in:

No.

You're too 3E, kid. D&D was invented by wargamers, but 3E is more wargamey than D&D actually ever was. It was NOT CRUCIALLY about codifying resource management as precisely as possible. It was about creating a framework for making shit up.

Such at least is my bold claim, not having been around myself.

The OP makes it quite clear that skills are not neccessary, not worthwhile.
it´s about ad-hoc, "freestyle" gaming.

Thiefs are only seen as bad thing because of their skills.

Quotebut 3E is more wargamey than D&D actually ever was.

I took the combined arms out of a Col Pladoh post. He said so! it must be true.

Alas, being some kind of wargamer, I´d also say that 3.5 is way less wargamey than OD&D is.

Col Pladoh, while a demi-god, is fallible, and is but one demi-god among others.

How is 3.x less wargamey than OD&D?

It´s only tactical.
All about reactive tactics.

Set is right that D&D party structure is in part to enable combined arms tactics.