So, I have a few thoughts (http://citadelchaos.blogspot.com/2008/10/illusionists.html) I wanted to share on my blog, but I am not fully onboard with the idea of the comments section being very useful, so I am going to throw my ideas out over here and see what you people think.
The primary thrust is that classes and sub-classes in AD&D were fairly poorly set up. Magic Users and Illusionists are only differentiated in the language of their magic, for example, and Paladins could justifiably be categorized as a kind of Cleric.
Part of the blog was to sort out some thoughts for Alternate Character Sets, so I wanted to take my ponderings in a vacuum and expose them to the wild.
I, too, love to keep things organized properly (I love to try and apply the principles of taxonomy and hierarchy to everything, even if I get frustrated when the pieces won't fit). Heck, I do the same thing in real life (or maybe that's just a mild case of OCD, lol).
I love the idea of having 4 base classes that can then be specialized (sort of like the class kits kind of did in 2e).
I'm not sure I agree with putting Paladin under Cleric, though. I've always been tempted to go with 4 base classes but also have crossover classes that fill in the gaps between the classes (sort of an elemental / para-elemental relationship). In which case, paladin would fall into the Fighter-Cleric generic class (as would Ranger).
I am not really a fantasy buff, but if had to choose I would stick to the iconic old D&D classes of Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Thief, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling. The notion and an "elf ranger" or "dwarf cleric" for introduces a level of sophistication that defeats the whole purpose of the fantasy genre.
And don't even get me started on multi-classing.
The old heroquest classes - Barbarian, Wizard, Dwarf and Elf - work well too, in fact might even be better.
Quote from: jgants;257012I, too, love to keep things organized properly (I love to try and apply the principles of taxonomy and hierarchy to everything, even if I get frustrated when the pieces won't fit). Heck, I do the same thing in real life (or maybe that's just a mild case of OCD, lol).
Then we have the same mild
QuoteI love the idea of having 4 base classes that can then be specialized (sort of like the class kits kind of did in 2e).
I am sorely tempted to try something with kits, but I would like to get this written up and on the web before the next decade. :) Hopefully, as you mention, this can act in a similar enough manner.
QuoteI'm not sure I agree with putting Paladin under Cleric, though. I've always been tempted to go with 4 base classes but also have crossover classes that fill in the gaps between the classes (sort of an elemental / para-elemental relationship). In which case, paladin would fall into the Fighter-Cleric generic class (as would Ranger).
It is a tricky one. I am debating still on that, but I am leaning towards putting them under Cleric just to shake things up a little. Fighters already have Rangers and Barbarians, Cavaliers are more appropriate under Fighter, while Clerics still have Druids and that is all. I can certainly see crossover classes as a way to get rid of the hassles of multi-classing.
Quote from: Soylent Green;257016The old heroquest classes - Barbarian, Wizard, Dwarf and Elf - work well too, in fact might even be better.
Works out that way in Warhammer Quest too!
Quote from: Soylent Green;257016I am not really a fantasy buff, but if had to choose I would stick to the iconic old D&D classes of Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Thief, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling. The notion and an "elf ranger" or "dwarf cleric" for introduces a level of sophistication that defeats the whole purpose of the fantasy genre.
This pretty much sums up where my head's at these days. I used to think race-as-class for demi-humans was stupid, but over the years, it made more and more sense the more I thought about it.
I have been intrigued by many of the neo-grognards out there who advocate removal of the thief, but that's not the topic of this thread.
The concept of class kits from AD&D's 2nd edition was a good one, but the execution ranged from okay (some of the fighter and thief kits) to horrible (a lot of the sub-class and racial kits). I had an idea back when I was younger and had more time to re-vamp kits as less front-loaded, giving you small bonuses over, say, the first 9 or 10 levels, like so (this is off the toppa my head):
Soldier Kit (Fighter)
Level 1: 1 bonus weapon proficiency
Level 2: +1 dmg
Level 4: +1 to-hit
Level 6: +2 dmg
etc.
I still like the idea, but I never really finished the job beyond a handful of fighter kits.
Quote from: Soylent Green;257016I am not really a fantasy buff, but if had to choose I would stick to the iconic old D&D classes of Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Thief, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling. The notion and an "elf ranger" or "dwarf cleric" for introduces a level of sophistication that defeats the whole purpose of the fantasy genre.
And don't even get me started on multi-classing.
The old heroquest classes - Barbarian, Wizard, Dwarf and Elf - work well too, in fact might even be better.
I like those for B/X or RC, and Labyrinth Lord continues with that. Personally, I prefer the options available with race/class combinations. It's too homogeneous for every elf to fight and cast
magic missile, and dwarves and halflings aren't terribly differentiated from a normal fighter. The humanocentric design argument falls more than a little flat these days, anyway. While a strict emulation of genre conventions would have humans on the ascent, I think there are many more stories that can be told; stories that are every bit as rich, if not more so.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;257118Works out that way in Warhammer Quest too!
Then go play that, you hippie! :)
Just wanted to get some snark injected here. As long as that
Maid thread is around, it's hard to attract an audience. ;)
Quote from: KenHR;257186The concept of class kits from AD&D's 2nd edition was a good one, but the execution ranged from okay (some of the fighter and thief kits) to horrible (a lot of the sub-class and racial kits). I had an idea back when I was younger and had more time to re-vamp kits as less front-loaded, giving you small bonuses over, say, the first 9 or 10 levels, like so (this is off the toppa my head):
I agree with all of this. It allowed having a stable base with a bit of tweaking. One issue kits often had was trading a permanent effect for a one time effect on equipment/money.
I think prestige classes started as an attempt to revamp kits and make them less front loaded.
I like the idea of spreading out the benefits instead of giving a 1st level character a lump bonus.
Quote from: KenHR;257186This pretty much sums up where my head's at these days. I used to think race-as-class for demi-humans was stupid, but over the years, it made more and more sense the more I thought about it.
No, it makes no sense, you are just crazy. :)
QuoteThe concept of class kits from AD&D's 2nd edition was a good one, but the execution ranged from okay (some of the fighter and thief kits) to horrible (a lot of the sub-class and racial kits). I had an idea back when I was younger and had more time to re-vamp kits as less front-loaded, giving you small bonuses over, say, the first 9 or 10 levels, like so (this is off the toppa my head):
Soldier Kit (Fighter)
Level 1: 1 bonus weapon proficiency
Level 2: +1 dmg
Level 4: +1 to-hit
Level 6: +2 dmg
etc.
I still like the idea, but I never really finished the job beyond a handful of fighter kits.
Quote from: Nicephorus;257190I agree with all of this. It allowed having a stable base with a bit of tweaking. One issue kits often had was trading a permanent effect for a one time effect on equipment/money.
I think prestige classes started as an attempt to revamp kits and make them less front loaded.
I like the idea of spreading out the benefits instead of giving a 1st level character a lump bonus.
Your ideas intrigue me. Shall I subscribe to both of your newsletters separately, or do you jointly publish one? :)
Quote from: StormBringer;257193No, it makes no sense, you are just crazy. :)
If only I were witty enough and had the mental stamina, I'd stretch this argument out to Seanchai-ish heights of contradiction and absurdity. But alas, I am neither witty nor hearty enough for the endeavor. So we can only imagine what might have been...
Quote from: StormBringer;257193Your ideas intrigue me. Shall I subscribe to both of your newsletters separately, or do you jointly publish one? :)
It's definitely an idea still worth looking into. You can look at a lot of AD&D sub-classes as "kits" from this perspective. I may have my sketchy notes laying around still, but it would take a lot of digging. They may only exist as files on an ancient Brother word processor/typewriter thingie I used in the pre-laptop age.
Quote from: KenHR;257206If only I were witty enough and had the mental stamina, I'd stretch this argument out to Seanchai-ish heights of contradiction and absurdity. But alas, I am neither witty nor hearty enough for the endeavor. So we can only imagine what might have been...
I am rather curious, however. I am familiar with the genre, but I have precious little time allocated to me for catching up on the reading. What is it about races as classes that fits for you?
QuoteIt's definitely an idea still worth looking into. You can look at a lot of AD&D sub-classes as "kits" from this perspective. I may have my sketchy notes laying around still, but it would take a lot of digging. They may only exist as files on an ancient Brother word processor/typewriter thingie I used in the pre-laptop age.
Well, you would have to dig up some 8.25 inch disks to transfer it over, also. :)
With my ideas still in an embryonic stage, I am open to ideas. Like most, I was enamoured with the idea of kits, but the execution left much to be desired. Like much of the original rules, I think they could benefit greatly from simply being organized better, and structured a bit more. That is going to be the majority of my initial efforts, I think. After that, I will be able to begin re-writing and inserting new material in earnest.
Rough ideas:
Man-at-arms
Fighter
Ranger
Barbarian
Cavalier
&c.
Arcanist
Magic User
Sorcerer
Alienist
Wu Jen
&c.
Hieratic
Cleric
Druid
Exemplar
Shukenja
&c.
Freeboot (rogue?, picaroon?, scoundrel?)
Thief
Assassin
Monk
Bard
&c
Having a class that fits into more than one category will be tricky, but not impossible. Using kits as a guideline, it may not even be necessary. For example, a Magic User character would take the Soldier kit, claiming to be from a Sparta-like society. They would get use of a short or long sword, perhaps, get the Soldier kit level bonuses, but still use the attack and saves chart for Magic Users.
Kits wouldn't modify class abilities or features that are extant, but would provide a certain bonus to them. To Hit and Damage bonuses, or save bonuses, but the base class would still be used for attacks, hit points, level progression and so on. The listing would note this:
Man-at-arms
Fighter
Ranger
Barbarian
Soldier (kit)
Guard (NPC)
&c.
Additionally, the (NPC) designator would indicate a class that is better for use as an NPC, hence, they would have a smaller hit die than the base class, or a worse attack and save matrix. So, a Guard may use the attack matrix and hit die for Clerics, but still save as a Fighter. Also, they could be used for a low powered campaign, so spell casters would have a slower spell progression, or be limited in spell level.
Therefore, if you are looking for that kit, you will generally know the section in which to find it. Also, this would prevent having a separate set of kits for each base class, as there is nothing inherently flawed about having a Fighter with the Soldier kit, or a Magic User with the Hedge Wizard kit, as they will only provide minor bonuses. These would be offset by an xp or other penalty, so they don't become standard for every character.
These kits could also have a variable degree, so Hedge Wizard might grant an additional spell or two per level, which would be the only spells a non-spell casting base class would know, while the Self-Taught Magician kit would allow spell casting at half the base class level. A 16th Thief who has Self-Taught Magician would cast spells as an 8th level Magic User, but no other save benefits or the like. Probably, a quarter the base class level would be more appropriate.
Quote from: StormBringer;257231I am rather curious, however. I am familiar with the genre, but I have precious little time allocated to me for catching up on the reading. What is it about races as classes that fits for you?
It's hard for me to explain well, because I never really put it into words, just turned it over in my head during idle hours. I guess it's the tone of the game more than anything. For a straight S&S game, I'd go human only. But I usually include demi-humans, and when I do, I want them to feel a bit different from the norm.
With the race-as-class setup, elves are just...
elves. They all do magic, and they can all fight well, too. I don't know...race-with-class just dilutes that feeling for me. A Basic D&D elf is like a badass First Age elf from Tolkien...or at least, it has the potential to be just like one.
Does that make any sense?
(I think Soylent Green's post says it all, really, and far more economically!)
Quote from: StormBringer;257231Well, you would have to dig up some 8.25 inch disks to transfer it over, also. :)
Actually, this one used 3.5s...not in any format readable by a PC, of course...
Quote from: StormBringer;257231With my ideas still in an embryonic stage, I am open to ideas. Like most, I was enamoured with the idea of kits, but the execution left much to be desired. Like much of the original rules, I think they could benefit greatly from simply being organized better, and structured a bit more. That is going to be the majority of my initial efforts, I think. After that, I will be able to begin re-writing and inserting new material in earnest.
It looks like you're off to a good start! I haven't had a chance to read everything over carefully, but it seems you've gotten a good framework for ideas in place.
I have to look them over, but I think the Player's Option kits worked the ways yours do. That makes much more sense to me, and it can be used to differentiate cultures to an extent.
Quote from: KenHR;257359It's hard for me to explain well, because I never really put it into words, just turned it over in my head during idle hours. I guess it's the tone of the game more than anything. For a straight S&S game, I'd go human only. But I usually include demi-humans, and when I do, I want them to feel a bit different from the norm.
With the race-as-class setup, elves are just...elves. They all do magic, and they can all fight well, too. I don't know...race-with-class just dilutes that feeling for me. A Basic D&D elf is like a badass First Age elf from Tolkien...or at least, it has the potential to be just like one.
Does that make any sense?
I think I get it. The idea of elves being magical and fighting well is what makes it emulate the genre so well. If an elf is good at fighting (just a Fighter class), it doesn't feel quite like an elf anymore, and more like a human with pointy ears.
QuoteIt looks like you're off to a good start! I haven't had a chance to read everything over carefully, but it seems you've gotten a good framework for ideas in place.
I have to look them over, but I think the Player's Option kits worked the ways yours do. That makes much more sense to me, and it can be used to differentiate cultures to an extent.
I was looking to draw the idea of cultural or regional kits from 3.x. Prestige classes weren't implemented any better than kits were, but the ideas behind them were sound. I downloaded Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures from Paizo the other day, I will be scouring my Player's Option books, and ripping out the usable bits of 2nd Edition and the Complete Handbooks.
Oh, it's going to be a slaughter, baby, and I will deliver the best bits to the consumer! :)
The Bard Games book The Arcanum had an interesting idea.
It had several base classes, and then several more dual classes. The dual classes basically combined the base classes and cost more XP.
So you'd have the Martial Artist and the Rogue and combine them for the Ninja, or combine Martial Artist with the Cleric for the Mystic (i.e. Monk).
Quote from: Jackalope;257467The Bard Games book The Arcanum had an interesting idea.
It had several base classes, and then several more dual classes. The dual classes basically combined the base classes and cost more XP.
So you'd have the Martial Artist and the Rogue and combine them for the Ninja, or combine Martial Artist with the Cleric for the Mystic (i.e. Monk).
I will have to pick that up, if Paizo has it.
Dammit, it is getting hard to have a decent discussion around here with all the
Maid and
Carcosa dustups.
You know, I got to thinking about this more and remembered something about Rolemaster having a similar concept, too.
I never played the game, but my understanding was that it had classes (that dictated how much each skill category would cost) and occupations (which were discounted bundles of skill levels or something).
Anybody know more about that or if any of those concepts would be useful for what Engine is talking about?
RoleMaster classes did not restrict you from learning anything, they only varied the costs of a skill. They were more "mindsets" than archetypes.
I only played MERP and RM2, so never got into the training packages and such (introduced in RMSS). However, the earlier games had an adolescent skill development phase where skill costs were based on culture.
Quote from: StormBringer;257940I will have to pick that up, if Paizo has it.
Dammit, it is getting hard to have a decent discussion around here with all the Maid and Carcosa dustups.
Bard Games is the predecessor to WOTC, they published Talislanta originally. They've been gone for years, and Arcanum is both long out of print and collector's item.
You might find it on Noble Knight or Ebay, but be prepared to spend a lot for a well-worn and used copy. I recently replaced my copy, and it was $60 for a copy with coffee stains, yellowing pages, and copious hand-written notes inside.
Totally worth it though. Anyone familiar with will tell you it's one of the best stealth supplements for OD&D, 1E and Basic D&D ever.
A friend of mine had the pre-Arcanum Bard Games supplements: Compleat Adventurer, Compleat Spell Caster and Compleat Alchemist. They were really cool.
I thought someone did a new version of Arcanum? Or was that Atlantis?
Quote from: KenHR;257969RoleMaster classes did not restrict you from learning anything, they only varied the costs of a skill. They were more "mindsets" than archetypes.
I only played MERP and RM2, so never got into the training packages and such (introduced in RMSS). However, the earlier games had an adolescent skill development phase where skill costs were based on culture.
Hmmm... no skills to bundle, but if I really wanted to get down to bare metal, I could break things down like 2nd edition did for creating new classes.
You still get some skills/points in RMFRP for your culture in the chargen.
Perhaps this list from the ICE website would be helpful (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item185)? It shows the cost on training packages for the different classes. It might give you some ideas, if nothing else. :)
Quote from: Zachary The First;258371You still get some skills/points in RMFRP for your culture in the chargen.
Perhaps this list from the ICE website would be helpful (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item185)? It shows the cost on training packages for the different classes. It might give you some ideas, if nothing else. :)
Very helpful, thanks! While 1st Edition and OSRIC don't have skills, this will certainly give me some direction for alternate classes.
Quote from: StormBringer;258391Very helpful, thanks! While 1st Edition and OSRIC don't have skills, this will certainly give me some direction for alternate classes.
Yeah, that's more what I was thinking you might get out of it. Hope it helps! :)