TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: Jam The MF on January 15, 2022, 01:22:09 AM

Title: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Jam The MF on January 15, 2022, 01:22:09 AM
Ranger?  Bard?  Barbarian?  Druid?  Paladin?  Sorcerer?  Warlock?  Magus?
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: jmarso on January 15, 2022, 01:38:29 AM
Ranger
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Mishihari on January 15, 2022, 02:45:20 AM
Ranger.  Each of the core 4 has a specialty role in the party:  fighter - physical combat, cleric - healer, thief - stealth, magic-user - magic.  Of your list the only one with a role entirely distinct from the core 4 is the ranger with a role of wilderness survival.  Of course for that to make sense, adventures must be written so that role is equally important with the others to a party's success, which is not the case in any D&D adventure I've seen.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 15, 2022, 02:50:23 AM
Henchman.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Opaopajr on January 15, 2022, 04:13:36 AM
The Victim. It covers all the other NPCs -- and apparently is a much in demand class today!  ;D

I keed I keed!  8) j/k
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 15, 2022, 06:37:54 AM
Bard

Cuz it's the only one that's not basically a direct variant of the others. And even then you could argue that its a type of Thief-Mage hybrid.

My view on classes is that not even the 4 are needed, cuz Cleric is just a magic user specialized in healing, with a bit of fighter thrown in it. So it should just be Warrior, Specialist ("Rogue"/Skill Monkey/Odd Talents) and Mystic. Then mystics get to pick their spell access a la carte, or something (maybe using Feats, which I know the OSR loves :P).
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Chris24601 on January 15, 2022, 07:33:27 AM
Bard

Cuz it's the only one that's not basically a direct variant of the others. And even then you could argue that its a type of Thief-Mage hybrid.
I was about to post similar, but not that it’s not a direct variant of the others, but because; at least from 3e on; it’s settled into the role of “Jack-of-all-Stats.”

- Better weapons than everyone but the Fighter.
- Better skills than everyone but the Rogue.
- Healing magic, but not on par with the Cleric.
- Enchantment/Illusion magic, but not as good as a Wizard.

It also sets itself apart by its magic being Charisma-based and spontaneous/spells known vs. prepared; making its casting feel legitimately different from the other too (more akin to tricks they’ve picked up in their travels than something they’ve rigorously studied the principles of or devoted their life and faith to). They also have party buffing by their bardic music and being exposition device via bardic knowledge as some of its own shtick.

They also make a good choice for 5th member because they can support/fill-in when other members are missing or debilitating. Does the fighter need someone on his side/back to keep from getting flanked or to be a distraction while the rogue sets up a sneak attack? Bard is decent enough in combat to do that. Did the cleric just get dropped by damage? The bard has enough healing mojo to get the cleric back up so you don’t lose all their healing resources.

Basically, they don’t shine at any one thing, but by being decent at basically everything they’re as asset at supporting and filling in the gaps.

Also, if you allow a little creativity in terms of what constitutes a performance for bardic music (ex. oratory) they also work rather well as a stand-in for the 4E Warlord class (just pick your spells from the more subtle end of the pool and say they’re “advanced motivational/demotivational techniques” you learned while studying at the bardic College of War).

TL/DR; Bard, because they don’t step on any of the core four’s toes and are a Jack-of-All-Stats (master of none) with a few unique knacks of their own.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 15, 2022, 08:27:30 AM
Bard

Cuz it's the only one that's not basically a direct variant of the others. And even then you could argue that its a type of Thief-Mage hybrid.
I was about to post similar, but not that it’s not a direct variant of the others, but because; at least from 3e on; it’s settled into the role of “Jack-of-all-Stats.”

- Better weapons than everyone but the Fighter.
- Better skills than everyone but the Rogue.
- Healing magic, but not on par with the Cleric.
- Enchantment/Illusion magic, but not as good as a Wizard.

It also sets itself apart by its magic being Charisma-based and spontaneous/spells known vs. prepared; making its casting feel legitimately different from the other too (more akin to tricks they’ve picked up in their travels than something they’ve rigorously studied the principles of or devoted their life and faith to). They also have party buffing by their bardic music and being exposition device via bardic knowledge as some of its own shtick.

They also make a good choice for 5th member because they can support/fill-in when other members are missing or debilitating. Does the fighter need someone on his side/back to keep from getting flanked or to be a distraction while the rogue sets up a sneak attack? Bard is decent enough in combat to do that. Did the cleric just get dropped by damage? The bard has enough healing mojo to get the cleric back up so you don’t lose all their healing resources.

Basically, they don’t shine at any one thing, but by being decent at basically everything they’re as asset at supporting and filling in the gaps.

Also, if you allow a little creativity in terms of what constitutes a performance for bardic music (ex. oratory) they also work rather well as a stand-in for the 4E Warlord class (just pick your spells from the more subtle end of the pool and say they’re “advanced motivational/demotivational techniques” you learned while studying at the bardic College of War).

TL/DR; Bard, because they don’t step on any of the core four’s toes and are a Jack-of-All-Stats (master of none) with a few unique knacks of their own.

Yeah, Bards cover a lot of stuff other classes don't quite manage to cover, while at the same time being a bit like every other class combined. So they can sorta cover gaps for certain roles in the group, and still provide an extra layer of party support even in a complete group that covers every other role.

It's pretty much the only specialized class that can sorta stand on its own. The rest are just variants of the 4 (3 IMO). A Barbarian is basically just a tough fighter. A Paladin is a pious fighter. Rangers are just fighters with tracking, light armor and crappy stealth. Druids are basically nature clerics (or Mystics IMO). A Sorcerer is literary just another word for Mage, etc.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Persimmon on January 15, 2022, 09:29:25 AM
I'll say none, because I think the core 4 pretty much cover it.  Like others have said, the bard just kind of combines powers with a bit of lore mastery thrown in.  So it can fit, but the utility (as we recently found in our OSE campaign) is pretty situational/niche.  Likewise for most of the other classic subclasses, which is why they are subclasses.  They certainly add stuff and can be integral in the right context, but your typical published scenario, for example, is still going to presume the core 4, more or less. 

That being said, it can be fun and challenging to play with a group of PCs who don't fit that.  In one group we had the following PCs: Human paladin, human barbarian, half-elf druid, and a gnome illusionist/thief.  So no straight cleric or magic-user.  But we still covered the basic presumed skill sets. And we were all very experienced players who worked well together.

But I'm tempted to say monk because I just love them, as ridiculous and incongruous as they are with the other classes.  Though I never really understood why they have all those thief abilities.  Climbing walls and moving silently makes sense I suppose, but the rest?
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Eric Diaz on January 15, 2022, 09:33:36 AM
I'd say a leader (warlord-type). Affects morale of the troops, etc. Well, all PCs become leaders at level 9 or so, but maybe a low-level commander would fit. Think Captain America. But this could replace the cleric. Maybe Charisma-based (also makes me think of mountebank).

And maybe some kind of non-magical sage or loremaster.

Otherwise.... yeah, ranger is probably the best answer here.

Also:

Str = Fighter
Int = Mu
Wis = cleric
Dex = Thief
Cha = Leader
Con = Ranger

The Victim. It covers all the other NPCs -- and apparently is a much in demand class today!  ;D

I keed I keed!  8) j/k

Well, I do have a Hopeless class in my Dark Fantasy Basic... Inspired by Moldvay and Dark Souls
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 15, 2022, 09:52:04 AM
B-Ball Lord

You would be suprised how often a good dunk can get you out of a jam.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Slambo on January 15, 2022, 10:12:12 AM
B-Ball Lord

You would be suprised how often a good dunk can get you out of a jam.

Ah yes the space jam / Chef Boyardee Presents Charles Barkley's Shut Up and Jam Gaiden: Chapter One of the Hoops Barkley Saga (yes thats an actual fan game and thats the full name)  class.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Mistwell on January 15, 2022, 01:07:21 PM
Ranger?  Bard?  Barbarian?  Druid?  Paladin?  Sorcerer?  Warlock?  Magus?

I've always thought Ranger was the natural fit, but in terms of balancing power it's Bard.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Slambo on January 15, 2022, 02:31:57 PM
I kinda feel like the Huntsman from ASSH (or just Hyperborea now) would be a good fit for a barbarian/ranger sorta hybrid without magic. However i also kinda think anyone should be able to tame a pet. Which just gets you back to it being a fighter theif.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Wrath of God on January 16, 2022, 03:48:18 AM
Hard to say to me as I'm not OSR player, but I guess considering Thief is more narrow class there - Bard as jack would take it all.

Otherwise probably I'd keep core 4 but make like 4 combinations of combat/social/exploratory classes to combine into more specific modes.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: S'mon on January 16, 2022, 06:22:08 AM
Ranger/Hunter/Scout seems to fit best as the 5th wheel in actual play, IME. Stealthy but fairly tough scout/archer type PC seems to work well to enhance the core 4 without stepping on toes.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on January 16, 2022, 08:30:37 AM
I think if you are going to expand, you need to start with a different core 4.  Namely, fighter, ranger, wizard, druid.  Ranger with no spells, more stealth.  Visualize those in a circle. 

Then slot either the cleric or the paladin between the fighter and druid.  Slot the thief between the ranger and wizard, expanding a little on the thief magic user scroll use to give them the wizard spells the ranger used to have.  Or put an old-school bard there if you prefer, though I don't like the "bard" name on that class, as I prefer it to be an off-shoot of the druid.

There are other ways to do it, of course, including different visualizations besides a circle.  For old-school, I'd prefer to keep it down to no more than six classes per race, with the above being the human options.  So there might be 10-12 classes, but they 4-6 that any given race can use are on some kind of clear circle or other simple diagram.

Point being, to expand is to change the core 4 in some way.  Expansion works best when it takes that into account.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: RebelSky on January 16, 2022, 06:20:43 PM
Hard to say to me as I'm not OSR player, but I guess considering Thief is more narrow class there - Bard as jack would take it all.

Otherwise probably I'd keep core 4 but make like 4 combinations of combat/social/exploratory classes to combine into more specific modes.

This is how the classes in Hyperborea seem to be designed. It has the 4 core classes and a bunch of sub-classes that are thematically both combinations of the 4 yet do fill in a niche the 4 core can't really fill.

WWN goes the other route. It has 3 core classes, 1 hybrid class, and a bunch of customization options players can choose to take the core classes and make them his or her own.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Nephil on January 16, 2022, 07:02:59 PM
Paladin, the mixture of Fighter and Cleric that is different than either of them. The holy warrior with special powers that helps him defeat the wicked.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 16, 2022, 08:04:31 PM
Paladin, the mixture of Fighter and Cleric that is different than either of them. The holy warrior with special powers that helps him defeat the wicked.
I find the cleric and paladin archtypes overlap very heavily, more than almost any pair of classes.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Chris24601 on January 17, 2022, 08:13:38 AM
Paladin, the mixture of Fighter and Cleric that is different than either of them. The holy warrior with special powers that helps him defeat the wicked.
I find the cleric and paladin archtypes overlap very heavily, more than almost any pair of classes.
I agree with Pat for once. It became especially clear in 4E and 5e where every class used the same attack progression that a cleric was just a paladin with better spells but worse weapons and a paladin was just a cleric with worse spells but better weapons… and in AD&D a fighter was just a subpar paladin without all the attribute requirements (as if the high stats weren’t already their own reward).

Frankly, what we really need are just three classes; warrior, expert and mage (with a required specialization that strongly restricts what any one mage can cast) and easy multiclassing between the three.

Ex. The cleric is a mage 2 (healing/buffing spec) warrior 1. The paladin is a warrior 2 mage 1 (buffing/smiting spec).

The bard would be a warrior 1, expert 1, mage 1 (buff/enchantment spec). The thief is an expert 3, but the 3e and later rogue is either an expert 2, warrior 1 or a warrior 2, expert 1 depending on focus.

The only reason we need 4 classes in D&D is because healing was split off from the mage and every system of non-magical hit point recovery is so slow that you basically needed the healer class to not be stuck recovering for weeks after every fight.

Clean up the damage/recovery system and the need for a dedicated healer class goes away and you’ve got a much better split in terms of archetypes and just about any other the other D&D classes is just a mix and match of warrior/expert/mage.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: The Spaniard on January 17, 2022, 11:24:01 AM
I'd say the Ranger.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Joey2k on January 17, 2022, 01:38:59 PM
Another vote for Ranger. Ranger actually replaces Cleric in my core 4
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Zalman on January 17, 2022, 02:05:11 PM
I think if you are going to expand, you need to start with a different core 4.  Namely, fighter, ranger, wizard, druid.  Ranger with no spells, more stealth.

These are my personal core 4 as well, not even sure I feel the need to expand from there.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: ShieldWife on January 17, 2022, 09:56:50 PM
I think it’s going to depend on how flexible and customizable the current 4 classes are. If  a magic user can learn healing magic as well as offensive or utility magic, maybe even sacrificing magical might for martial ability, then you don’t need a distinction between a cleric and a mage. In theory, you don’t need classes at all, but classes are fun, so let’s go with them and see how we can cover various D&D classes with combinations of the big 4.

Barbarian: a fighter who sacrificed heavy armor for rage, maybe gets some nature related skills too.

Ranger: a combination rogue and fighter, with rogue skills being very nature focused instead of urban. If they get magical abilities, we might need to look at the druid.

Druid: a nature themed cleric. They give up armor usage in exchange for certain abilities like shape changing or animal control.

Warlock: a cleric of an evil deity/demon lord/etc. Alternatively, a wizard with a specialization in evil magic or some kind of feats to represent demonic powers.

Paladin: A fighter with some cleric levels.

Bard: rogue and wizard combined, maybe with a fighter level for a more combat focused character.

Swashbuckler: a dexterity based fighter with perhaps some rogue levels. Alternatively, a combat focused rogue.

Sorcerer: a wizard with some thematic differences or slightly different way of casting or learning spells.

Oracle: a cleric with a particular weakness and focus.

Monk: this one is tricky. They are mostly a fighting class. Are they then primarily a fighter with a bizarre specialization in hand to hand fighting that can’t use armor but gets a bunch of weird special abilities? The monk is quite different from the fighter but also so specialized and unique that it can’t be used as the foundation for other character concepts either. This one could be trouble.

Alchemist: a wizard whose spells are chemical themed. Alternatively, if a cleric is a set of abilities rather than a worshipper of gods, then an alchemist could be a cleric who heals with potions rather than divine miracles.

Witch: like a warlock or druid

Summoner: cleric or wizard specializing in summoning magic.

Knight/Samurai/Cavalier: specialized fighter

Assassin/Ninja: specialized rogue



So far, it seems like the class that is the hardest to model with the main 4 is the monk.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Jam The MF on January 17, 2022, 10:23:29 PM
I think it’s going to depend on how flexible and customizable the current 4 classes are. If  a magic user can learn healing magic as well as offensive or utility magic, maybe even sacrificing magical might for martial ability, then you don’t need a distinction between a cleric and a mage. In theory, you don’t need classes at all, but classes are fun, so let’s go with them and see how we can cover various D&D classes with combinations of the big 4.

Barbarian: a fighter who sacrificed heavy armor for rage, maybe gets some nature related skills too.

Ranger: a combination rogue and fighter, with rogue skills being very nature focused instead of urban. If they get magical abilities, we might need to look at the druid.

Druid: a nature themed cleric. They give up armor usage in exchange for certain abilities like shape changing or animal control.

Warlock: a cleric of an evil deity/demon lord/etc. Alternatively, a wizard with a specialization in evil magic or some kind of feats to represent demonic powers.

Paladin: A fighter with some cleric levels.

Bard: rogue and wizard combined, maybe with a fighter level for a more combat focused character.

Swashbuckler: a dexterity based fighter with perhaps some rogue levels. Alternatively, a combat focused rogue.

Sorcerer: a wizard with some thematic differences or slightly different way of casting or learning spells.

Oracle: a cleric with a particular weakness and focus.

Monk: this one is tricky. They are mostly a fighting class. Are they then primarily a fighter with a bizarre specialization in hand to hand fighting that can’t use armor but gets a bunch of weird special abilities? The monk is quite different from the fighter but also so specialized and unique that it can’t be used as the foundation for other character concepts either. This one could be trouble.

Alchemist: a wizard whose spells are chemical themed. Alternatively, if a cleric is a set of abilities rather than a worshipper of gods, then an alchemist could be a cleric who heals with potions rather than divine miracles.

Witch: like a warlock or druid

Summoner: cleric or wizard specializing in summoning magic.

Knight/Samurai/Cavalier: specialized fighter

Assassin/Ninja: specialized rogue

So far, it seems like the class that is the hardest to model with the main 4 is the monk.


That's pretty much how I see the classes, comparatively.  I'm not a big fan of monks in the midst of medieval fantasy, though.  I never even consider playing a monk, myself.

Thief: I hide in the shadows.
Fighter: I swing with the sword.
Cleric: I heal my friend.
Magic User: I cast fireball.
Monk: I know Kung Fu.
BBG: I killed your master.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: ShieldWife on January 17, 2022, 10:42:04 PM
That's pretty much how I see the classes, comparatively.  I'm not a big fan of monks in the midst of medieval fantasy, though.  I never even consider playing a monk, myself.

Thief: I hide in the shadows.
Fighter: I swing with the sword.
Cleric: I heal my friend.
Magic User: I cast fireball.
Monk: I know Kung Fu.
BBG: I killed your master.
Yeah, I have the same feeling about the monk as well. I’ve never actually played one and it’s been many years since I’ve even seen one played. They only really fit into certain kinds of games.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Aglondir on January 18, 2022, 02:19:38 AM
Frankly, what we really need are just three classes; warrior, expert and mage (with a required specialization that strongly restricts what any one mage can cast) and easy multiclassing between the three.

Ex. The cleric is a mage 2 (healing/buffing spec) warrior 1. The paladin is a warrior 2 mage 1 (buffing/smiting spec).

The bard would be a warrior 1, expert 1, mage 1 (buff/enchantment spec). The thief is an expert 3, but the 3e and later rogue is either an expert 2, warrior 1 or a warrior 2, expert 1 depending on focus.

The only reason we need 4 classes in D&D is because healing was split off from the mage and every system of non-magical hit point recovery is so slow that you basically needed the healer class to not be stuck recovering for weeks after every fight.

Clean up the damage/recovery system and the need for a dedicated healer class goes away and you’ve got a much better split in terms of archetypes and just about any other the other D&D classes is just a mix and match of warrior/expert/mage.

You are correct.

True 20 did this in 2005.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Trinculoisdead on January 18, 2022, 02:45:42 AM
Elves!
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Reckall on January 18, 2022, 03:21:38 AM
Sorcerer/Favoured Soul, to get rid of Vancian Magic.

Actually, I would only keep four:

Fighter
Thief
Sorcerer
Favoured Soul

Let the characters start at, let's say, level 3, so to "specialise" as seen before in this thread ("Hey! I'm F2/T1! I'm a Ranger!)
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Naburimannu on January 18, 2022, 03:54:41 AM
Once we start building custom character classes, we can switch to the ACKS Player's Companion approach of 5:

Humans spread 4 points between these 5 categories. Nonhumans can have up to 8 build points, but each extra build point reduces the maximum level of characters by 1 (from 14, not WotC's 20+) and increases XP requirements.

IIRC Fighter is 2-2-0-0-0, Thief is 0-1-3-0-0, Cleric is 1-1-0-2-0, Mage is 0-0-0-0-4.

Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 10:06:35 AM
Nonhumans can have up to 8 build points, but each extra build point reduces the maximum level of characters by 1 (from 14, not WotC's 20+) and increases XP requirements.

This kind of stupidity is why people don't take the OSR, or many of its proponents, seriously.

Now go ahead, tell me I think my characters all have to be special snowflakes, and don't acknowledge or even contemplate why this approach is pants-on-head retarded.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 18, 2022, 10:18:30 AM
Nonhumans can have up to 8 build points, but each extra build point reduces the maximum level of characters by 1 (from 14, not WotC's 20+) and increases XP requirements.

This kind of stupidity is why people don't take the OSR, or many of its proponents, seriously.

Now go ahead, tell me I think my characters all have to be special snowflakes, and don't acknowledge or even contemplate why this approach is pants-on-head retarded.
Your failure to understand something doesn't mean it's stupid.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Wrath of God on January 18, 2022, 10:58:50 AM
Quote
This kind of stupidity is why people don't take the OSR, or many of its proponents, seriously.

Now go ahead, tell me I think my characters all have to be special snowflakes, and don't acknowledge or even contemplate why this approach is pants-on-head retarded.

Nah, you are just self-righteous prick :P
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 11:09:14 AM
Okay, boomers.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 18, 2022, 11:38:58 AM
Okay, boomers.

If OD&D came bundled with anthrax, its proponents would insist a hospital visit is a key aspect of the D&D experience and your a moron if you think it’s not.

On this site people have said od&d having bad mechanics was a good thing because it taught you to fix them.

That said im not into freakshit and some OSR is really good.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 18, 2022, 11:40:13 AM
Nonhumans can have up to 8 build points, but each extra build point reduces the maximum level of characters by 1 (from 14, not WotC's 20+) and increases XP requirements.

This kind of stupidity is why people don't take the OSR, or many of its proponents, seriously.

Now go ahead, tell me I think my characters all have to be special snowflakes, and don't acknowledge or even contemplate why this approach is pants-on-head retarded.

I agree. People don't take the OSR seriously (at least I don't anyways :P).

Which part is the one you think is stupid, though? Is it the build point thing, allowing only non-humans to get extra build points, or max level reductions based on number of added build points?

My only immediate issue is the max level stuff, which I was never a fan of as a balancing factor. But personally I don't know enough to judge, cuz I'm not familiar with the system. Could work, maybe not, IDK. Depends on how it's handled, I suppose.

The moment I see "build points" to build to custom classes, though, it makes me wonder: Why not just turn everything into a Feat and build your character a la carte with Feats per Level and let feat availability be the balancing factor?
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 18, 2022, 12:24:29 PM
Which part is the one you think is stupid, though?
GnomeWorks didn't say.

There are plenty of things, good and bad, to say about OSR games. But if someone can't even come up with a single concrete criticism, it's not the start of an discussion. It's just someone with nothing to contribute being an insufferable asshole.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 04:47:28 PM
Your failure to understand something doesn't mean it's stupid.

Don't expect me to do your critical thinking for you, jerkass. I understand perfectly well what the intent was, and I can explain why it's stupid, which I will do later for the benefit of you who apparently need information spoon-fed to you.

Nah, you are just self-righteous prick :P

That may be, but ad hom is boring. Attack the argument or STFU, because I personally don't have two shits to give about your opinion of me on a personal level.

Which part is the one you think is stupid, though? Is it the build point thing, allowing only non-humans to get extra build points, or max level reductions based on number of added build points?

Primarily the max level reduction as the "price" for the extra build points. Anyone who has actually played D&D for any length of time knows that the vast majority of games don't see 10th level, much less anything past that. Which means that non-human characters can buy more power for literally free. Not only is this obviously bad design, but it has knock-on effects for the kinds of party racial compositions you are likely to see, as well, which may result in parties not demographically matching the fiction. I bring up that second point because I'm having issues with that in my games right now, where the last couple groups have been largely non-humans in a setting that is supposed to be human-centric.

Increased XP requirements to level are a staple of pre-WotC D&D, so I'm ambivalent. I personally don't like them conceptually, but I don't know of any solid argument against them and pondering it for a few minutes didn't yield anything obviously problematic in my mind. I think they make the game more difficult to balance in general, but "clunky" isn't synonymous with "bad."

Build-a-bear approaches to characters typically sound good, on paper it allows for more customization and such, but in general I find they're less than ideal. Can they be functional? Sure. But character class as a game structure exist the way they do for a reason: mucking with that can have awkward and wonky results.

GnomeWorks didn't say.

There are plenty of things, good and bad, to say about OSR games. But if someone can't even come up with a single concrete criticism, it's not the start of an discussion. It's just someone with nothing to contribute being an insufferable asshole.

Cry me a fucking river, I'm sorry you're too incompetent to recognize bad design when you see it.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 18, 2022, 05:05:51 PM
Ok Gnomeworks, I dislike much os OD&D but your just a rude asshole.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 18, 2022, 05:06:57 PM
Primarily the max level reduction as the "price" for the extra build points. Anyone who has actually played D&D for any length of time knows that the vast majority of games don't see 10th level, much less anything past that.
That wasn't the case at Gygax's table, where characters regularly reached level limits. Or in many long running campaigns today. You're making generalizations about the entire world of roleplayers based on an extrapolation of your own very limited set of experiences, ended up drawing the same trite and predictable conclusions we've seen so many times it's become tiresome, introduced this unnovel unrevelation of yours with a bellicose fusillade of shit instead of a coherent argument, and you think it's everyone else who's stupid.

Your IQ is roughly equivalent to room temperature, isn't it? And I'm not talking Fahrenheit.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 06:18:12 PM
Ok Gnomeworks, I dislike much os OD&D but your just a rude asshole.

Do you have anything useful to contribute?

That wasn't the case at Gygax's table

I don't give a single solitary fuck about anecdotes, be they yours, mine, or Gygax's. I go by data. (https://411mania.com/games/dd-campaign-stop-stats-level-ten-dd-beyond/)
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 18, 2022, 06:34:45 PM
Which part is the one you think is stupid, though? Is it the build point thing, allowing only non-humans to get extra build points, or max level reductions based on number of added build points?

Primarily the max level reduction as the "price" for the extra build points. Anyone who has actually played D&D for any length of time knows that the vast majority of games don't see 10th level, much less anything past that. Which means that non-human characters can buy more power for literally free. Not only is this obviously bad design, but it has knock-on effects for the kinds of party racial compositions you are likely to see, as well, which may result in parties not demographically matching the fiction. I bring up that second point because I'm having issues with that in my games right now, where the last couple groups have been largely non-humans in a setting that is supposed to be human-centric.

Increased XP requirements to level are a staple of pre-WotC D&D, so I'm ambivalent. I personally don't like them conceptually, but I don't know of any solid argument against them and pondering it for a few minutes didn't yield anything obviously problematic in my mind. I think they make the game more difficult to balance in general, but "clunky" isn't synonymous with "bad."

Yeah, this is pretty much my felling about all of this stuff. One additional issue with racial level caps is that they can get messy if the group actually does reach high level, then you're stuck with a lower level character for perpetuity, cuz non-humans are apparently too retarded to advance after a certain point, which doesn't make a lot of sense conceptually speaking and is just an artificial measure. Plus a lot of groups end up ignoring them anyways, or working around them with increased XP requirements for higher levels.

I prefer XP penalties as a balancing factor, but agree that they feel "cluncky". Though, I'm a strong believer in the idea that you can have (almost) any character ability you want, as long as you "pay" for it somehow in-game. Point buy tends to be better for this. You could just charge races with greater abilities an extra amount of "points" equal to whatever those extra abilities would normally cost.

An XP debt might be better for level-based games. Once you pay off your debt you may advance normally. But till then you're stuck at level 1 or whatever. The two benefits I see in XP Debt vs XP Penalty are that 1) you only pay it once, then never have to think about or keep track of it ever again, and 2) you could work out precise XP costs for different types of abilities and pay for all the extra stuff you're getting exactly what they're worth (presumably).

Build-a-bear approaches to characters typically sound good, on paper it allows for more customization and such, but in general I find they're less than ideal. Can they be functional? Sure. But character class as a game structure exist the way they do for a reason: mucking with that can have awkward and wonky results.

It's a trade off kind of thing. Greater customization adds more work during character creation (and advancement as well, if progression involves some kind of point system), and doesn't always produce consistent results. But then again I always questioned how consistently powerful or useful different classes are in class & level systems. I see people complain about the 5e Ranger being too weak all the time (in other editions as well, come to think of it).

Plus I always found class systems too restrictive, so I prefer customization options and dealing with the trade offs.

Ok Gnomeworks, I dislike much os OD&D but your just a rude asshole.

Yah, I can be an asshole as well, but I usually wait till I'm locked in an argument with someone for a few posts before my inner-asshole comes out, lol
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 18, 2022, 06:48:20 PM
I don't give a single solitary fuck about anecdotes, be they yours, mine, or Gygax's. I go by data. (https://411mania.com/games/dd-campaign-stop-stats-level-ten-dd-beyond/)
Then you're further compounding your idiocy, because you're criticizing the OSR based on self-reported data from a competitor using a different set of rules.

Not only that, your basic premise is ludicrous. Being data-driven is lovely, but even the word paucity isn't sufficient to describe the data about the RPG industry. It's a barren and trackless wasteland, because what little formal industry analysis there's been is locked up as corporate secrets, and only shared in begrudging dribs and drabs, like the two decades old survey results from WotC. Even as basic a piece of information as which games sold the most has to rely on limited slices of highly biased data, like Amazon sales ranks, DTRPG metal rankings, or the retailer reports used by ICv2.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 07:00:05 PM
Yeah, this is pretty much my felling about all of this stuff. One additional issue with racial level caps is that they can get messy if the group actually does reach high level, then you're stuck with a lower level character for perpetuity, cuz non-humans are apparently too retarded to advance after a certain point, which doesn't make a lot of sense conceptually speaking and is just an artificial measure. Plus a lot of groups end up ignoring them anyways, or working around them with increased XP requirements for higher levels.

It is a very game-y sort of solution that doesn't care about the fiction.

Quote
An XP debt might be better for level-based games. Once you pay off your debt you may advance normally. But till then you're stuck at level 1 or whatever. The two benefits I see in XP Debt vs XP Penalty are that 1) you only pay it once, then never have to think about or keep track of it ever again, and 2) you could work out precise XP costs for different types of abilities and pay for all the extra stuff you're getting exactly what they're worth (presumably).

That was the approach in 3e, called Level Adjustment.

It was pretty universally panned, on top of it not really working out all that well.

Quote
It's a trade off kind of thing. Greater customization adds more work during character creation (and advancement as well, if progression involves some kind of point system), and doesn't always produce consistent results. But then again I always questioned how consistently powerful or useful different classes are in class & level systems. I see people complain about the 5e Ranger being too weak all the time (in other editions as well, come to think of it).

I was speaking specifically in regards to classes in a class-based system. If you just throw together bits and pieces from a number of classes together into one character, you're probably going to get weird synergies, anti-synergies, and redundancies. You also lose the notion of class identity, which can be an important factor.

Quote
Yah, I can be an asshole as well, but I usually wait till I'm locked in an argument with someone for a few posts before my inner-asshole comes out, lol

I just can't be asked to care, today. Attack the arguments or not, I don't give a damn about your personal opinions of me. Who are you, that I should care? Say dumb shit, get called out for it. If you take it personally, that's on you.

Then you're further compounding your idiocy, because you're criticizing the OSR based on self-reported data from a competitor using a different set of rules.

Right because obviously it's impossible there's any amount of correlation there. Not to mention the earlier study - which you reference - also showed similar information, which IIRC was done before 3e came out. If two sets of data show roughly the same trends over 20 years, pretty safe bet they're representative of the lay of the land.

Will there be outliers? Fucking obviously, nigh-everything falls into a normal distribution. And don't give me that "WotC is a competitor using a different set of rules" garbage, you know damn well that it's basically the same shit. One is old, likes flowery language and obtuse mechanics; the other is a bunch of SJW fucktards trying to push progressive agendas. It's still godsdamn elfgames.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 18, 2022, 07:19:50 PM
Yeah, this is pretty much my felling about all of this stuff. One additional issue with racial level caps is that they can get messy if the group actually does reach high level, then you're stuck with a lower level character for perpetuity, cuz non-humans are apparently too retarded to advance after a certain point, which doesn't make a lot of sense conceptually speaking and is just an artificial measure. Plus a lot of groups end up ignoring them anyways, or working around them with increased XP requirements for higher levels.

I prefer XP penalties as a balancing factor, but agree that they feel "cluncky". Though, I'm a strong believer in the idea that you can have (almost) any character ability you want, as long as you "pay" for it somehow in-game. Point buy tends to be better for this. You could just charge races with greater abilities an extra amount of "points" equal to whatever those extra abilities would normally cost.

An XP debt might be better for level-based games. Once you pay off your debt you may advance normally. But till then you're stuck at level 1 or whatever. The two benefits I see in XP Debt vs XP Penalty are that 1) you only pay it once, then never have to think about or keep track of it ever again, and 2) you could work out precise XP costs for different types of abilities and pay for all the extra stuff you're getting exactly what they're worth (presumably).
You're not stuck with a lower level character in perpetuity. You can just pull a non-halfling character out of your binder, and start playing them. Or pick a retainer, and make them your PC. Or even start from scratch with a new 1st level character. Because the way XP works in old school D&D, at least up until name level, is characters of much lower level catch up fast. Generally speaking, if the party just reached 8th level, and you're first level, then by the time they reach 9th level, you'll be 8th level. That's how doubling XP at each new level works: XP to reach level N = XP to go from level N to level N+1. Sure, those low level party members can be fragile during that compressed period of advancement, but they're easily replaceable. Playing the underdog forever can be tiresome, but playing the underdog for a brief period is often very fun.

And the caps do enforce a certain feel to the setting. No, it doesn't match whatever specific genre you think it's trying to emulate. If you really want to play Tolkien elves, for instance, then they should all start at high levels, and have a level cap at least 3 times the human limit just because. Also there should be common humans, and those with elvish (Numenorean) blood, and the latter are superior to the first group by every racial measure. But if you ignore what you think the rules should do, and look at what they actually do, while the result may not be your taste, that becomes a matter of personal preference not an objective assessment of overall value.

The real thing racial level caps do is enforce scarcity. This operates at the setting level, where all the highest level characters will be human. This creates a human-centric world, since there is more range and power, which encourages putting demihumans in isolated backwaters, and making them more archetypal than varied. This also operates on the player-selection level, where many players will skip demihumans in favor of humans with fewer long-term limitations, even if the demihumans have mechanical advantages out of the gate. If elves are always superior to humans and have no limits, or even if they're equal and perfectly balanced across all levels, then you lose some of that strangeness and exclusivity, that sense of the rare or alien. It also creates a sense of something waning, or diminishing, or ceding the world to more vibrant and diverse races. Which is actually very Tolkienesque, even if the means are not.

Note, I'm not saying that level limits are ideal in many circumstances, or even my preferred way of handling things. Just that GnomeWorks is an insufferable asshole with no redeeming qualities, and that level caps do have real effects both on the world and party composition than some people like, and that the barriers you're describing are less formidable than you're making them out to be.

The idea of an XP deficit doesn't really work. Just look at the B/X elf as an ironic example. Starts with 1d6 hp, armor and attacks of a fighter, and the 1st level spell of a 1st level magic-user. But it takes 4,000 XP to reach 2nd level, by which time the 1d8 hp fighter will have reached second, then third level. That period where everyone else reaches 2nd level while you're stuck at 1st level is a fragile time, when the elf is at their weakest and most likely to die. An XP deficit would just keep them at that stage indefinitely.

It's a little off track, but I think a better approach to elf 1 is to split it into two tiers. Start them as fighters with 1d6 HD, and no spells. Then at the 2,000 half level stage, give them the magic-user spell and maybe a boost of hp to tide them over to 2nd level (even +1 would help). The idea is to smooth out the progression by introducing the two halves of their class abilities in stages. This still doesn't address all the issues with the class, but it is a way to work on that 2nd level problem.

Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 18, 2022, 07:38:56 PM
Then you're further compounding your idiocy, because you're criticizing the OSR based on self-reported data from a competitor using a different set of rules.

Right because obviously it's impossible there's any amount of correlation there. Not to mention the earlier study - which you reference - also showed similar information, which IIRC was done before 3e came out. If two sets of data show roughly the same trends over 20 years, pretty safe bet they're representative of the lay of the land.

Will there be outliers? Fucking obviously, nigh-everything falls into a normal distribution. And don't give me that "WotC is a competitor using a different set of rules" garbage, you know damn well that it's basically the same shit. One is old, likes flowery language and obtuse mechanics; the other is a bunch of SJW fucktards trying to push progressive agendas. It's still godsdamn elfgames.
It's still a biased study, based one company, relied on self-selection, and was based on an atypical sample pool. The 2e survey was in Dragon, and the number of players who subscribed to Dragon was small, and highly invested. I'm guessing the more recent data is similar, probably based on subscribers to the online platform. Those badly fail at the idea of a representative sample.

And even if we make the huge jump based on almost no evidence at all and assume all your assumptions are true, then it still isn't relevant because one of the fundamental principles of the OSR is taking people back to a forgotten mode of play. That's why Finch's Primer exists, or Philotomy's Musings. There were several seismic shifts in how the game was played, and I'm not talking rules. I'm talking the social dynamics around around the table. And by the time the 1980s came along, the Gygaxian mode was all but extinct. That's why I referenced Gygax's table, because a lot of the rules were designed based on assumptions very alien to modern players. Gygax played with dozens of players, multiple DMs, multiple times a week until the wee hours, and players dropped in and out regularly. They shared characters between campaigns, each player had a portfolio of many PCs that they brought out or left in the sheaf depending on the level requirements and other factors for a night's adventure. In that context (and other contexts, like the wargamer heritage or sword & sorcery influences), many of the rules of old school D&D that seem at first blush to be awkward or optional, like retainers or morale or reach or level caps, actually gel into a coherent mode of play and implied world.

Also, not everything falls into a normal distribution. It's a common pattern, and allows us to draw conclusions when it's proven to be the case. But if it hasn't been proven, it could be chainsaw distribution, a hockey stick, or nearly anything else. I'd guess this is a likely candidate for a long tail, because it involves a very open-ended result.

Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: FingerRod on January 18, 2022, 09:06:05 PM
I would fire the cleric, and then add elf, dwarf and halfling race as class. Which is six. If you held me to five, drop the halfling.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Jam The MF on January 18, 2022, 10:17:00 PM
I would fire the cleric, and then add elf, dwarf and halfling race as class. Which is six. If you held me to five, drop the halfling.

It might be fun to drop all of the human character classes; and just play Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings from OD&D.  Their limitations won't matter as much, if they aren't constantly compared to human PC classes.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: ShieldWife on January 18, 2022, 11:11:34 PM
Alright, four classes:

Fighter, Rogue, Magic User, Race.

Each one would be highly customizable, so a fighter could be a berserker style barbarian, a heavily armored knight, a lightly armored Dexterity based swashbuckler and so on. The magic user could get healing magic from a god, could learn spell magic to shoot fire balls, and so on.

So the 4th class is the racial class, which could represent some sort of inherited powered based on race, species, or ancestry. This could of course include elves and dwarves, but also also cover a character who had faerie or demon ancestry, or other inborn abilities. Take just one level of the race class and you could have your basic elf or dwarf combined with some other class presenting training. Take more levels and the natural powers of the character’s ancestry continue to develop and become more powerful. This might be more trouble than it’s worth will all of the power sets it may include though.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 19, 2022, 12:01:39 AM
An XP debt might be better for level-based games. Once you pay off your debt you may advance normally. But till then you're stuck at level 1 or whatever. The two benefits I see in XP Debt vs XP Penalty are that 1) you only pay it once, then never have to think about or keep track of it ever again, and 2) you could work out precise XP costs for different types of abilities and pay for all the extra stuff you're getting exactly what they're worth (presumably).

That was the approach in 3e, called Level Adjustment.

It was pretty universally panned, on top of it not really working out all that well..

No, Level Adjustment increased your ECL, which affected both, you XP gain from defeating enemies, as well as how much XP you must earn to level, based on your ECL. So that you always got less XP per Kill/Defeat, but needed more to level up, based on your LA.

An XP Debt would be a flat one time amount that doesn't continue to increase as you level. The reason I came up with the idea of XP Debt was precisely to get around LAs, cuz I found them too punishing at higher levels and added complexity to having to figure out how much XP you actually need to level up.

Pat did bring up an issue with having to pay the XP Debt in full before you can advance that I address in my reply to his post, at the end of this post.

Quote
It's a trade off kind of thing. Greater customization adds more work during character creation (and advancement as well, if progression involves some kind of point system), and doesn't always produce consistent results. But then again I always questioned how consistently powerful or useful different classes are in class & level systems. I see people complain about the 5e Ranger being too weak all the time (in other editions as well, come to think of it).

I was speaking specifically in regards to classes in a class-based system. If you just throw together bits and pieces from a number of classes together into one character, you're probably going to get weird synergies, anti-synergies, and redundancies. You also lose the notion of class identity, which can be an important factor.

Ah, OK. But a lot of that still applies to multi-classing regardless, so I'm not sure it's an entirely escapable issue, specially if you want customization options.

Quote
Yah, I can be an asshole as well, but I usually wait till I'm locked in an argument with someone for a few posts before my inner-asshole comes out, lol

I just can't be asked to care, today. Attack the arguments or not, I don't give a damn about your personal opinions of me. Who are you, that I should care? Say dumb shit, get called out for it. If you take it personally, that's on you.

You didn't make an argument initially till I asked you what you thought, though. But whatevs. I'm used to people being angry at forums, I suppose, lol

Yeah, this is pretty much my felling about all of this stuff. One additional issue with racial level caps is that they can get messy if the group actually does reach high level, then you're stuck with a lower level character for perpetuity, cuz non-humans are apparently too retarded to advance after a certain point, which doesn't make a lot of sense conceptually speaking and is just an artificial measure. Plus a lot of groups end up ignoring them anyways, or working around them with increased XP requirements for higher levels.

I prefer XP penalties as a balancing factor, but agree that they feel "cluncky". Though, I'm a strong believer in the idea that you can have (almost) any character ability you want, as long as you "pay" for it somehow in-game. Point buy tends to be better for this. You could just charge races with greater abilities an extra amount of "points" equal to whatever those extra abilities would normally cost.

An XP debt might be better for level-based games. Once you pay off your debt you may advance normally. But till then you're stuck at level 1 or whatever. The two benefits I see in XP Debt vs XP Penalty are that 1) you only pay it once, then never have to think about or keep track of it ever again, and 2) you could work out precise XP costs for different types of abilities and pay for all the extra stuff you're getting exactly what they're worth (presumably).
You're not stuck with a lower level character in perpetuity. You can just pull a non-halfling character out of your binder, and start playing them. Or pick a retainer, and make them your PC. Or even start from scratch with a new 1st level character. Because the way XP works in old school D&D, at least up until name level, is characters of much lower level catch up fast. Generally speaking, if the party just reached 8th level, and you're first level, then by the time they reach 9th level, you'll be 8th level. That's how doubling XP at each new level works: XP to reach level N = XP to go from level N to level N+1. Sure, those low level party members can be fragile during that compressed period of advancement, but they're easily replaceable. Playing the underdog forever can be tiresome, but playing the underdog for a brief period is often very fun.

You still can't continue to advance with that one character, though, which was my point.

And the caps do enforce a certain feel to the setting. No, it doesn't match whatever specific genre you think it's trying to emulate. If you really want to play Tolkien elves, for instance, then they should all start at high levels, and have a level cap at least 3 times the human limit just because. Also there should be common humans, and those with elvish (Numenorean) blood, and the latter are superior to the first group by every racial measure. But if you ignore what you think the rules should do, and look at what they actually do, while the result may not be your taste, that becomes a matter of personal preference not an objective assessment of overall value.

The real thing racial level caps do is enforce scarcity. This operates at the setting level, where all the highest level characters will be human. This creates a human-centric world, since there is more range and power, which encourages putting demihumans in isolated backwaters, and making them more archetypal than varied. This also operates on the player-selection level, where many players will skip demihumans in favor of humans with fewer long-term limitations, even if the demihumans have mechanical advantages out of the gate. If elves are always superior to humans and have no limits, or even if they're equal and perfectly balanced across all levels, then you lose some of that strangeness and exclusivity, that sense of the rare or alien. It also creates a sense of something waning, or diminishing, or ceding the world to more vibrant and diverse races. Which is actually very Tolkienesque, even if the means are not.

Note, I'm not saying that level limits are ideal in many circumstances, or even my preferred way of handling things. Just that GnomeWorks is an insufferable asshole with no redeeming qualities, and that level caps do have real effects both on the world and party composition than some people like, and that the barriers you're describing are less formidable than you're making them out to be.

Perhaps, but there's also a balance component to level caps (since demi-humans have benefits humans don't), which is what interests me most and tends to be my primary concern about this stuff from a game design PoV.

The idea of an XP deficit doesn't really work. Just look at the B/X elf as an ironic example. Starts with 1d6 hp, armor and attacks of a fighter, and the 1st level spell of a 1st level magic-user. But it takes 4,000 XP to reach 2nd level, by which time the 1d8 hp fighter will have reached second, then third level. That period where everyone else reaches 2nd level while you're stuck at 1st level is a fragile time, when the elf is at their weakest and most likely to die. An XP deficit would just keep them at that stage indefinitely.

It's a little off track, but I think a better approach to elf 1 is to split it into two tiers. Start them as fighters with 1d6 HD, and no spells. Then at the 2,000 half level stage, give them the magic-user spell and maybe a boost of hp to tide them over to 2nd level (even +1 would help). The idea is to smooth out the progression by introducing the two halves of their class abilities in stages. This still doesn't address all the issues with the class, but it is a way to work on that 2nd level problem.

This is a good point, but that sort of applies to AD&D multi-class characters as well, which would also need like 4k+ XP to reach level 2 in both classes.

However, in regards to my proposed XP Debt thing this is an issue I've considered before that came up when I've tried it in play before (but forgot last post :P), and I ended up awarding 50% XP ahead, then the other 50% to pay off the debt. I may need to adjust it further if the pay off amount ends up being too high. But the basic idea is to pay a fixed one time amount, rather than get stuck with an XP penalty forever (or having to track Level Adjustments like in 3e) over a handful of racial abilities that might not even be that useful at higher levels.

Granted, paying the XP Debt in installments adds to the complexity, but then again the alternatives are also kinda complex and trap you into paying extra XP forever. And this complexity goes away the moment you pay off your debt (unlike the alternative).
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 19, 2022, 01:07:56 AM
This is a good point, but that sort of applies to AD&D multi-class characters as well, which would also need like 4k+ XP to reach level 2 in both classes.

However, in regards to my proposed XP Debt thing this is an issue I've considered before that came up when I've tried it in play before (but forgot last post :P), and I ended up awarding 50% XP ahead, then the other 50% to pay off the debt. I may need to adjust it further if the pay off amount ends up being too high. But the basic idea is to pay a fixed one time amount, rather than get stuck with an XP penalty forever (or having to track Level Adjustments like in 3e) over a handful of racial abilities that might not even be that useful at higher levels.

Granted, paying the XP Debt in installments adds to the complexity, but then again the alternatives are also kinda complex and trap you into paying extra XP forever. And this complexity goes away the moment you pay off your debt (unlike the alternative).
Regarding multi-classing in AD&D, at least it spreads out the abilities over time (M/T advances to 1/2 then 2/3) instead withholding them all improvement until you paid the XP toll for both classes (elf 1 to 2 in B/X is equivalent to going straight from F 1/M1 to F 2/M2 in AD&D, with no interim F 2/M 1). That's particularly important for hp, because the jump from 1st to 2nd level is so great (doubling combat endurance). Still don't think the math works with the installment plan XP penalty.

Stepping back a bit, I think it helps to compare the demihumans of B/X to their human counterparts. The elf in particular, because the elf is a composite of two classes.

The elf is overpowered at 0 XP, when everyone is first level. Basically a fighter + magic-user with 1 less hp and some extra racial abilities. But when the fighter reaches 2,000 XP and 2nd level, that hp deficit jumps from 3.5:4.5 hp (on average) to 3.5:9. That's a big difference. There are no other real benefits, because saves and attacks don't improve until 4th level. And then when the magic-user reaches 2,500 XP, the 1 hp penalty (2.5:3.5) changes so the magic-user is tougher than the elf, and most importantly the number of spell cast doubles. The elf starts looking feeble.

But then as 4,000 XP is reached, the elf levels along with the fighter, and still lags significantly behind the fighter in toughness (7:13.5 hp), but overtops the magic-user (7:5), and gains the MU's second spell. At 5,000 XP, the magic-user jumps slightly ahead again (7.5:7 hp), and gains a 2nd level spell. From that point on, the elf lags in toughness, tending to be closer to the mage (say 150,000 XP: fighter 36 hp, elf 24.5 hp, MU 20 hp), and lags just a bit in spells (either a spell level behind, or half as many of the highest level spells). Attacks are 0-3 points worse than fighters, averaging roughly a -2/3 penalty (yes less than a -1 to hit). Saves are typically the best of the fighter and the magic-user's, occasionally a bit less. Racial abilities get less useful over time, but with the tight spell economy of B/X and the lack of spells that replace every last ability, infravision, finding secret doors, and extra languages will remain useful. And then the cap hits, but it's not much a cap if only using B/X: E 10 has the same XP as F 12, so the fighter only has two extra levels to grow. Magic-users get a potential 3 level advantage (M 11 = E 10 = F 12). If BECMI rules are introduced, it's more complicated.

The relative power progression is very erratic. The elf 1 to 2 jump is the most abrupt, which is why I propose delaying one of the class abilities, and creating a half-level in between. After that, my impression is that the elf should consistently lag. Having them 2 levels behind a magic-user in casting prowess and 3 in fighting, and thus always being a spell level/attack (not quite a save) tier behind, would be an interesting approach, though that's more new school thinking than old. The erratic jump in power from levels, as different classes progress at different rates and at different times, is one of the key features in the player rewards system in old school D&D. The lack of uniform leveling means relative power levels fluctuate, with everyone being better/worse at different times. And going up in level becomes a personal reward instead of a communal experience.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: FingerRod on January 19, 2022, 07:41:10 AM
I would fire the cleric, and then add elf, dwarf and halfling race as class. Which is six. If you held me to five, drop the halfling.

It might be fun to drop all of the human character classes; and just play Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings from OD&D.  Their limitations won't matter as much, if they aren't constantly compared to human PC classes.

That is something I have never thought of. Interesting. Most of my OD&D campaigns have been human-centric.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 19, 2022, 08:16:10 AM
This is a good point, but that sort of applies to AD&D multi-class characters as well, which would also need like 4k+ XP to reach level 2 in both classes.

However, in regards to my proposed XP Debt thing this is an issue I've considered before that came up when I've tried it in play before (but forgot last post :P), and I ended up awarding 50% XP ahead, then the other 50% to pay off the debt. I may need to adjust it further if the pay off amount ends up being too high. But the basic idea is to pay a fixed one time amount, rather than get stuck with an XP penalty forever (or having to track Level Adjustments like in 3e) over a handful of racial abilities that might not even be that useful at higher levels.

Granted, paying the XP Debt in installments adds to the complexity, but then again the alternatives are also kinda complex and trap you into paying extra XP forever. And this complexity goes away the moment you pay off your debt (unlike the alternative).
Regarding multi-classing in AD&D, at least it spreads out the abilities over time (M/T advances to 1/2 then 2/3) instead withholding them all improvement until you paid the XP toll for both classes (elf 1 to 2 in B/X is equivalent to going straight from F 1/M1 to F 2/M2 in AD&D, with no interim F 2/M 1). That's particularly important for hp, because the jump from 1st to 2nd level is so great (doubling combat endurance). Still don't think the math works with the installment plan XP penalty.

Stepping back a bit, I think it helps to compare the demihumans of B/X to their human counterparts. The elf in particular, because the elf is a composite of two classes.

The elf is overpowered at 0 XP, when everyone is first level. Basically a fighter + magic-user with 1 less hp and some extra racial abilities. But when the fighter reaches 2,000 XP and 2nd level, that hp deficit jumps from 3.5:4.5 hp (on average) to 3.5:9. That's a big difference. There are no other real benefits, because saves and attacks don't improve until 4th level. And then when the magic-user reaches 2,500 XP, the 1 hp penalty (2.5:3.5) changes so the magic-user is tougher than the elf, and most importantly the number of spell cast doubles. The elf starts looking feeble.

But then as 4,000 XP is reached, the elf levels along with the fighter, and still lags significantly behind the fighter in toughness (7:13.5 hp), but overtops the magic-user (7:5), and gains the MU's second spell. At 5,000 XP, the magic-user jumps slightly ahead again (7.5:7 hp), and gains a 2nd level spell. From that point on, the elf lags in toughness, tending to be closer to the mage (say 150,000 XP: fighter 36 hp, elf 24.5 hp, MU 20 hp), and lags just a bit in spells (either a spell level behind, or half as many of the highest level spells). Attacks are 0-3 points worse than fighters, averaging roughly a -2/3 penalty (yes less than a -1 to hit). Saves are typically the best of the fighter and the magic-user's, occasionally a bit less. Racial abilities get less useful over time, but with the tight spell economy of B/X and the lack of spells that replace every last ability, infravision, finding secret doors, and extra languages will remain useful. And then the cap hits, but it's not much a cap if only using B/X: E 10 has the same XP as F 12, so the fighter only has two extra levels to grow. Magic-users get a potential 3 level advantage (M 11 = E 10 = F 12). If BECMI rules are introduced, it's more complicated.

The relative power progression is very erratic. The elf 1 to 2 jump is the most abrupt, which is why I propose delaying one of the class abilities, and creating a half-level in between. After that, my impression is that the elf should consistently lag. Having them 2 levels behind a magic-user in casting prowess and 3 in fighting, and thus always being a spell level/attack (not quite a save) tier behind, would be an interesting approach, though that's more new school thinking than old. The erratic jump in power from levels, as different classes progress at different rates and at different times, is one of the key features in the player rewards system in old school D&D. The lack of uniform leveling means relative power levels fluctuate, with everyone being better/worse at different times. And going up in level becomes a personal reward instead of a communal experience.

Yeah, this pretty much matches my experience with multi-classed characters back in my 2e days, where multi-classed characters looked like they needed twice as much or more XP to level up at level 1 and it seemed like a steep climb. But as characters got to higher levels closing in on level 10+ they would eventually only lag like two or three levels behind the rest of the group (or single classed characters at least). However, multi-classed characters advancing in different classes at different rates wasn't that significant in terms of getting a few extra HP at least, because you still had to split your XP between all your classes and you also had to divide the HP gained by the number of classes you got, which meant that you still advanced almost at the same rate as an OD&D elf and didn't get that much extra HP, even if you managed to advance a low XP class like Thief before a higher XP class like Mage.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Pat on January 19, 2022, 09:21:20 AM
Yeah, this pretty much matches my experience with multi-classed characters back in my 2e days, where multi-classed characters looked like they needed twice as much or more XP to level up at level 1 and it seemed like a steep climb. But as characters got to higher levels closing in on level 10+ they would eventually only lag like two or three levels behind the rest of the group (or single classed characters at least). However, multi-classed characters advancing in different classes at different rates wasn't that significant in terms of getting a few extra HP at least, because you still had to split your XP between all your classes and you also had to divide the HP gained by the number of classes you got, which meant that you still advanced almost at the same rate as an OD&D elf and didn't get that much extra HP, even if you managed to advance a low XP class like Thief before a higher XP class like Mage.
The doubling XP at each new level means a double-class character will typically lag 1 level behind single class characters, and a triple-class character will typically lag about 1.5 levels behind. This changes when XP plateaus at name level, at which point multi-class characters no longer lag a fixed number of levels behind, but gain new levels based on the ratio of the XP needed to gain each new level.

So a double class character who is 2nd level will have as many XP as a single class character who is 3rd level, and that same 1 level different applies when the double class character is 8th level, and the single class character is 9th. For triple class characters, increase the difference by roughly half a level. But if we assume XP plateaus at 9th level, then a single class character going from 24th to 36th level will gain 12 levels, but for the same amount of XP a double class character will only gain 6 levels (in each class), and a triple class character will only gain 4 levels.

So even without level caps, high level demihumans who multi-class are pretty severely penalized (though this isn't that important, unless the game is played to very high levels). This is complicated of course by erratic XP progressions (AD&D is further from the ideal than B/X), level caps, different XP requirements for different classes, attack/save progressions slowing down or capping, hit points switching from dice to bonus pips, spell levels capping or stretching out, and so on. But ignoring all the quirks, it's an abstraction of the underlying math.

Multi-class characters in AD&D ideally have the average of hp for their component classes, but in practice they have much less because of rounding. For instance, the average of 1d6 is 3.5, but the average of 1d6/2 can be 1.167 to 1.5 depending on whether you round down or up -- and notice that even doubled, both those numbers are less than 3.5. This is aggravated by the fact that multi-class characters will be a level or a level and a half behind.

I tend to think multi-class or composite class characters should have more hp, but fewer powers.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 19, 2022, 12:09:55 PM
XP debt is a crap mechanic. In all the forms I have seen it, it sucks. Its either too weak or too strong.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 19, 2022, 12:10:09 PM
XP/Char Creation debt is a crap mechanic. In all the forms I have seen it, it sucks. Its either too weak or too strong.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 19, 2022, 12:54:56 PM
XP debt is a crap mechanic. In all the forms I have seen it, it sucks. Its either too weak or too strong.
XP/Char Creation debt is a crap mechanic. In all the forms I have seen it, it sucks. Its either too weak or too strong.

They're ALL crap, or at least flawed, mechanics.

Giving some races more power than others will ALWAYS be an issue, no matter how you handle it, at least if you care about balance or some races being more attractive choices than others. Question is, which one is least crap, cuz they're all flawed in some way, and I don't think there's a way around that. Best you can do is mitigate the problems, not vanish them completely.

Even making races artificially weaker doesn't work, cuz its not an authentic presentation of what that race is supposed to be like. Though, I can understand long lived races like elves starting out at low levels for balance purposes, despite them being implied as what would be called "high-level" creatures in RPG terms within fiction. But they should still get their basic capabilities, like special senses, resistances or ability bonuses and such--which inevitably leads us to some races being stronger than others (and back to the start of this post). There is no silver bullet solution once you go down that road.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Jam The MF on January 19, 2022, 09:38:20 PM
I would fire the cleric, and then add elf, dwarf and halfling race as class. Which is six. If you held me to five, drop the halfling.

It might be fun to drop all of the human character classes; and just play Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings from OD&D.  Their limitations won't matter as much, if they aren't constantly compared to human PC classes.

That is something I have never thought of. Interesting. Most of my OD&D campaigns have been human-centric.


I have a good idea like that come to me, maybe once in a blue moon.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Wrath of God on January 21, 2022, 07:17:17 AM
Quote
They're ALL crap, or at least flawed, mechanics.

Giving some races more power than others will ALWAYS be an issue, no matter how you handle it, at least if you care about balance or some races being more attractive choices than others. Question is, which one is least crap, cuz they're all flawed in some way, and I don't think there's a way around that. Best you can do is mitigate the problems, not vanish them completely.

Even making races artificially weaker doesn't work, cuz its not an authentic presentation of what that race is supposed to be like. Though, I can understand long lived races like elves starting out at low levels for balance purposes, despite them being implied as what would be called "high-level" creatures in RPG terms within fiction. But they should still get their basic capabilities, like special senses, resistances or ability bonuses and such--which inevitably leads us to some races being stronger than others (and back to the start of this post). There is no silver bullet solution once you go down that road.

I think ultimately making some power-caps as explanation for setting in human-dominance is relatively weak idea.
In The Witcher world elves are bit stronger than men, in Middle-Earth wood elves are slighly better while Eldars are wuxia superhero level compared to human (with Numenoreans somewhere in between). In both cases elves fade away, while era of man arised.

As one dwarven character in the Witcher explained: "it's because you breed like fokin rabbits, and it's enough for yer wench to sit on male pants for her belly to grew" ;)
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 21, 2022, 09:56:32 AM
'But dey reproduced fast' is also a dumb excuse for human dominance in most lazy human+dwarf+elf fantasy.

Middle Earth follows song convention. The elves and Dwarves are dying out because the magic juice is running out. Wether or not the assholes will rule the world before its completly gone is the premise of the series.
In other series either balance out your races, or explain why one isn't dominant over all others.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Wrath of God on January 21, 2022, 10:16:19 AM
I'd say mythical "magic juice is running out (vastly imprecise)" of Tolkien high epic elves vs. cynical "their birth rates are way inferior compared to humans" are both relatively fine explanations.
Also: dwarves do not follow elven ways in Tolkien, and they are not dying out yet - in fact they have certain reneissance, and probably will reclaim Moria soon into 4th age now that Durin's Bane was slain. But they are not numerous species with skewed gender proprotions, that's noted by Tolkien himself.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 21, 2022, 10:48:46 AM
Quote
They're ALL crap, or at least flawed, mechanics.

Giving some races more power than others will ALWAYS be an issue, no matter how you handle it, at least if you care about balance or some races being more attractive choices than others. Question is, which one is least crap, cuz they're all flawed in some way, and I don't think there's a way around that. Best you can do is mitigate the problems, not vanish them completely.

Even making races artificially weaker doesn't work, cuz its not an authentic presentation of what that race is supposed to be like. Though, I can understand long lived races like elves starting out at low levels for balance purposes, despite them being implied as what would be called "high-level" creatures in RPG terms within fiction. But they should still get their basic capabilities, like special senses, resistances or ability bonuses and such--which inevitably leads us to some races being stronger than others (and back to the start of this post). There is no silver bullet solution once you go down that road.

I think ultimately making some power-caps as explanation for setting in human-dominance is relatively weak idea.
In The Witcher world elves are bit stronger than men, in Middle-Earth wood elves are slighly better while Eldars are wuxia superhero level compared to human (with Numenoreans somewhere in between). In both cases elves fade away, while era of man arised.

As one dwarven character in the Witcher explained: "it's because you breed like fokin rabbits, and it's enough for yer wench to sit on male pants for her belly to grew" ;)

Yup. Unless they're powerful enough to wipe out an entire race, special powers can't beat birthrates, which is why if a nuclear holocaust wipes us out, the cockroaches will inherit the Earth, and they're more numerous than us even now. And elves aren't even drastically more powerful than humans in LotR.

'But dey reproduced fast' is also a dumb excuse for human dominance in most lazy human+dwarf+elf fantasy.

Middle Earth follows song convention. The elves and Dwarves are dying out because the magic juice is running out. Wether or not the assholes will rule the world before its completly gone is the premise of the series.
In other series either balance out your races, or explain why one isn't dominant over all others.

If reproductive success really was such a dumb excuse it wouldn't have worked for various species in real life. Yet here we are, outliving every other species from the "Homo" line. Even physically stronger ones like Neanderthals, or larger ones like Denisovans.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 21, 2022, 10:57:02 AM
If reproductive success really was such a dumb excuse it wouldn't have worked for various species in real life. Yet here we are, outliving every other species from the "Homo" line. Even physically stronger ones like Neanderthals, or larger ones like Denisovans.

Which is also why we are subservient to our reptilian overlords with their many eggs. Research into our past is not gonna get 100% precise results but im pretty sure there where more differences between us and neanderthals then pure birth rate.

Human birthrates are pretty piddly comparison to almost every other species on the planet (slower gestation, smaller litters). But we beat them out with our special powers. WE are the Elves of the world.

I'd say mythical "magic juice is running out (vastly imprecise)"

I was being vastly imprecise on purpose. It was magical vodka which made elves work. But then some guy institutd a magical prohibition which is why all the elves are also so depressed.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 21, 2022, 12:43:36 PM
If reproductive success really was such a dumb excuse it wouldn't have worked for various species in real life. Yet here we are, outliving every other species from the "Homo" line. Even physically stronger ones like Neanderthals, or larger ones like Denisovans.

Which is also why we are subservient to our reptilian overlords with their many eggs. Research into our past is not gonna get 100% precise results but im pretty sure there where more differences between us and neanderthals then pure birth rate.

Human birthrates are pretty piddly comparison to almost every other species on the planet (slower gestation, smaller litters). But we beat them out with our special powers. WE are the Elves of the world.

Unfortunately our information is limited in that regard, and we may never know for sure, since many factors could affect population decline. But findings suggest that Denisovans may have figured out craftsmanship and drilling technology before we did (and I also heard they may also have the oldest flutes found, meaning they may have figured out music as well, but couldn't find articles confirming that). So not only where they larger and stronger, but likely smarter as well. They were the actual Eves of our world.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cave-that-housed-neandertals-and-denisovans-challenges-view-of-cultural-evolution/
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 21, 2022, 12:58:08 PM
They were the actual Eves of our world.

All highly debatable (Neanderthals are posited to be only slightly different then humans to the point its possible we just intermarried with them), but 'Hole in Pendant' isn't exactly 'Stronger, Faster, Immortal and know Magic'.

In addition, they are talking about a theoretical species that existed before homo-sapience and neanderthals even came to be by a degree of multiple hundreds of thousands of years. So we are talking 'Mystical Progenitor race' more then 'Elf'
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 21, 2022, 01:10:14 PM
They were the actual Eves of our world.

All highly debatable (Neanderthals are posited to be only slightly different then humans to the point its possible we just intermarried with them), but 'Hole in Pendant' isn't exactly 'Stronger, Faster, Immortal and know Magic'.

In addition, they are talking about a theoretical species that existed before homo-sapience and neanderthals even came to be by a degree of multiple hundreds of thousands of years. So we are talking 'Mystical Progenitor race' more then 'Elf'

Denisovans aren't merely theoretical, though, and they were contemporary to anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals as well. There is concrete evidence of their existence, as well as traces of their DNA in modern human populations. Its just that the evidence of them found so far is minimal.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 21, 2022, 01:13:22 PM
Denisovans aren't merely theoretical, though, and they were contemporary to anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals as well.
Im not an evolution denier, I just mean that stuff this distant is up to being disproved or changed in the future as technology is changed around.
But back to the point: They where not competing alongside the somehow higher birthrated human and neanderthal at the same time.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 21, 2022, 02:18:48 PM
Denisovans aren't merely theoretical, though, and they were contemporary to anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals as well.
Im not an evolution denier, I just mean that stuff this distant is up to being disproved or changed in the future as technology is changed around.
But back to the point: They where not competing alongside the somehow higher birthrated human and neanderthal at the same time.

It's hard to say for certain given the limited information we have, but the fact that there are modern day humans with traces of Denisovan and/or Neanderthal DNA at least suggests they must have lived alongside each other at one point.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Wrath of God on January 22, 2022, 06:05:34 AM
Quote
And elves aren't even drastically more powerful than humans in LotR.

I mean Elrond, Galadriel, Glorfindel are. Rest not so much, and growing weaker with each era as corruption of the world wages heavily on their shoulders.
Those that shall not escape to Aman, are doomed to become not more than Wraiths - and that's how Tolkien linked his elves to medieval faeries.

Quote
Which is also why we are subservient to our reptilian overlords with their many eggs. Research into our past is not gonna get 100% precise results but im pretty sure there where more differences between us and neanderthals then pure birth rate.

Human birthrates are pretty piddly comparison to almost every other species on the planet (slower gestation, smaller litters). But we beat them out with our special powers. WE are the Elves of the world.

True but it's all kinda relative.
We compare ourselves to other in our weight category, and even then it's possible some vermin could sucker punch us with some extreme breeding speed. Happens from time to time with locusts.


Quote
Unfortunately our information is limited in that regard, and we may never know for sure, since many factors could affect population decline. But findings suggest that Denisovans may have figured out craftsmanship and drilling technology before we did (and I also heard they may also have the oldest flutes found, meaning they may have figured out music as well, but couldn't find articles confirming that). So not only where they larger and stronger, but likely smarter as well. They were the actual Eves of our world.

Hard to say. We know preciously little about Denisovians, though most Denisovian-blooded population in the world New Guinea Papuans does not seems to be extremely blessed by this inheritance. They were more thick boned, so yeah stronger in terms of encumberance, but probably less agile (based on Neanderthals their closest kin, as I think we lack much bones of Denisovians aside of teeth) and slower. So while neanderthal could survive some harsh beating better than modern man, well when more modern weapons comes into play - would it matter much? And neanderthals were not-numerous really and living in smaller tribes than modern men.

In terms of technology let's remember in cold climate there are better chances for fossils and archeological remains. As modern men left Africa after common ancestor of Ns and Ds, lot's of his achievements probably rotted away faster in African climate.

And yes Denisovians definitely existed, as sister branch to Neanderthals. Both early split of Homo sapiens compared to like 95% of our other ancestry.

Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: AtomicPope on February 17, 2022, 07:49:54 AM
Bard

Each of the four classes were designed to fill a vital role in the party.  Bards are not better than any of the primary four classes in their role but is second best, like a back-up singer.  The Bard shines brightest in a big group, which lends itself to their vital role as support.
Title: Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
Post by: Jam The MF on February 17, 2022, 02:05:00 PM
Bard

Each of the four classes were designed to fill a vital role in the party.  Bards are not better than any of the primary four classes in their role but is second best, like a back-up singer.  The Bard shines brightest in a big group, which lends itself to their vital role as support.

Bards or Rangers probably best fit in, with the Core 4 classes.