TheRPGSite

I just saw this list on a newsgroup, basically claiming that all to Core Classes from previous D&D editions, can basically be boiled down to 5 groups with three classes in each, the problem is I am not familiar enough with every D&D edition to know if any are missing.

QuoteMelee Specialists
Barbarian, Fighter/Fighting Man, Paladin
Magic Specialists
Magic-User/Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock,  [With Illusionist covered by Magic-User]
Healing Specialists
Cleric, Druid, Warlord
Stealth Specialists
Assassin, Ranger, Rogue/Thief
Others
Bard, Monk, Psion/Psionicist

Although if it is accurate it's a weird coincidence it's ended up that neat.

The intial 19 classes for Rolemaster worked out in a similar-ish neat fashion as I recall.

This is about as useful as the similarly exhaustive categorization of animals in The Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge:

   1. those that belong to the Emperor,
   2. embalmed ones,
   3. those that are trained,
   4. suckling pigs,
   5. mermaids,
   6. fabulous ones,
   7. stray dogs,
   8. those included in the present classification,
   9. those that tremble as if they were mad,
  10. innumerable ones,
  11. those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
  12. others,
  13. those that have just broken a flower vase,
  14. those that from a long way off look like flies.

I draw special attention to entry 12.

Pretty cool, and likely accidental.

And now I have to justify a campaign of zoologists to explore and categorize the world's many things under The Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. Thanks Windjammer!

... I'm thinking Legend of the Burning Sands, Fading Suns, or Call of Cthulhu.

Actually, an Idea i was working on around a year ago, and may have even posted, was breaking down the D&D classes in a triangle/ring pattern.

So you have pure melee at one point, pure magic at the second and pure 'skills' at the third. Linking those points in a ring were two more 'stops' between each point of hybridization so melee-magic and magic-melee were variants.

Using that I had 9 base classes that actually mapped (allowing for the idea that bards and rogues were more useful for what they knew how to do than magic or stabbinations... and yes, I intended to address that...) pretty well to existing classes.  

I never actually DID it because I realized that designing a game around massive lists of selectable powers, pre-coded, was actually pretty lame and a lot more effort than i wanted to do as a 'fun project'.

After a certain point you get to redundancy of effect anyway.  In a way the only reason to pick a Ranger over a Paladin, mechanically, is because you want a pet instead of a collection of nifty minor buffs.

Ditto the barbarian over a fighter: all you are trading is innate heavy armor and tactical flexibility for... DR and a few extra hit points? The ability to rage?

I mean, if you were planning to play a half naked fighter with a big ax, you could actually play a fighter and spend some of your bonus feats on toughness. Its mechanically inferior but conceptually identical.

I prefer

Warriors
Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian

Caster
Magic User (lets say Wizard), Priest, AN Other with a non vancian spell model

Rogue
Thief, Bard

A druid is just a Priest who drops a few casting levels and takes some daily/at will powers
A Monk should just be a figther who drops armour use for special at will daily powers

In a perfect world I would cut the whole lot down to 3 classes and have sub-classes whcih are just specific options

So a Paladin is just a fighter who drops some combat skills in return for daily/at will powers
A ranger is just a fighter wo drops comabt skills etc etc

You end us with 3 classes (I could cope with  wizards and Priests being separated) and a number of set sub-classes or archetypes which are set paths through the selection of options.

Some DMs might allow their PCs carte blanche to create their own archetypes from the options I would not allow that and set the archetypes based on DM choice and Setting.

Not suprising in light of my other recent posts htis is exactly how my heartbreaker looks.

Warrior
Archetypes include
Knight, Pirate, Kensai, Assasin, Ranger

Caster
Archetypes include
Sage, Priest, Wizard, Alchemist, Demonologist, Templar

Rogue
Pirate, Assassin, Thief, Spy, Smuggler

3 classes llets me set niche protection up to
Warrior = Combat
Caster = Magic
Rogue = Skills

workign well on paper the devil though as always is in the detail....

I don't see the classic Ranger (aka as TSR D&D did it) as stealth-based. A Ranger is a fighter with outdoor survival skills and a favored enemy or two. No real stealth abilities in there. The 3e ranger was similar as I recall but may have stressed two weapons for some weird reason (or maybe that was just the most common build the charop people used).  The 4e ranger was completely different, I think.

Quote from: RandallS;518716I don't see the classic Ranger (aka as TSR D&D did it) as stealth-based. A Ranger is a fighter with outdoor survival skills and a favored enemy or two. No real stealth abilities in there. The 3e ranger was similar as I recall but may have stressed two weapons for some weird reason (or maybe that was just the most common build the charop people used).  The 4e ranger was completely different, I think.

The 2e ranger got 2 weapon fighting for free... lord only knows why.

One of the odd things is that the Ranger is so tied to LotR whereas Aragorn is a certain cultural ranger and Hawkeye (last of the Mohicans not MASH) or Atalanta would make just as good a case of being of the class.

But again a ranger is just a fighter sub-class with certain character options just like a paladin :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;5187143 classes lets me set niche protection up to
Warrior = Combat
Caster = Magic
Rogue = Skills

workign well on paper the devil though as always is in the detail....

This is roughly the split of the three classes in Blue Rose / True20.  

I disliked it, personally.  I felt that if the classes didn't have any flavor to them, then why not just go all the way and have a classless system?  That would be simpler and more flexible, in my opinion.  

These core classes only provide niche-protection per se if you disallow having a character who mixes between these three areas of focus - such as a character who has spells but also some combat skills.  In D&D, there are plenty of gradations between these three, like wizard -> cleric -> paladin -> fighter who shade from magic focus to combat focus.

Actually jhkim, that was the impetus behind my idea (expressed geometrically from a design standpoint, admittedly). The Blue Rose/True 20 breakdown was breathtaking in its stunning obviousness (To me), and utterly bland in operation.

So while classes can break down into three main groups, a class based system benefits from more classes, more options to a point.

My 'method', obviously, was to focus on pre-built classes that didn't directly overlap in how they mixed the three legs of the tripod/triangle/troika/whatever.

That way you could have a pure spell caster and a pure rogue/expert and between them two mechanically different spellcasting rogues (one more magical and more more skillful), instead of two (or more) spell casting rogues that were really just the same class with skins on.

More like four groups of three.  Since I can't figure how these last three relate to each other I'll just lump them together as miscellaneous-  Look! It's the Others group.  Why wouldn't Psionicists/Psions fall under magic user, mechanically they may as well be?

Yeah, I don't get what's so radical about this. For years, its been known that there are really four classes in D&D: Fighter, Cleric, magic-user and rogue. And you can put all other classes into one of those types.  Druid's a type of cleric, bard a kind of rogue, paladin a kind of fighter, etc etc.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RandallS;518716I don't see the classic Ranger (aka as TSR D&D did it) as stealth-based. A Ranger is a fighter with outdoor survival skills and a favored enemy or two. No real stealth abilities in there.

Without stealth, he's not going to survive long.  Hunters MUST be stealthy.

Nothing is particularly radical about it per se.  In general, I find most eye opening ideas are simply something obvious that wasn't pointed out before to the person getting their eyes opened.

But, as you'll note, we actually take it a step further than the four class breakdown you pointed out was core.  Clerics are either fancy fighters who cast spells or honkin' powerful ass spell casters who get armor and hit points.

The slight difference in spell lists is a trival difference.

Quote from: Spike;518824Nothing is particularly radical about it per se.  In general, I find most eye opening ideas are simply something obvious that wasn't pointed out before to the person getting their eyes opened.

But, as you'll note, we actually take it a step further than the four class breakdown you pointed out was core.  Clerics are either fancy fighters who cast spells or honkin' powerful ass spell casters who get armor and hit points.

The slight difference in spell lists is a trival difference.

I agree with you on this one Spike.

The three class model needs work not to be bland that is why I want to use the archetype/sub-class so the DM takes/builds a setting which has 20 or 30 subclasses all with flavour but that all feed up to the 3 Class splits so there isn't a vast slew of mechanical variation instead there is a lot of colour.

I am trying to achieve this with different types of magic a caster selects from Hermanetic (magic as science with vancian style spells) , Demonologists (who bind demons to achieve effects), Sorcerers (who learn the true names of things and can effect them thus) and Divine (miracle workers that call on the gods).
Then there are a range of different spell lists, Wilderness, City, Stealth, etc
A range of comabtr options etc ...
You get 10 poitns per level to buy these skills , powers, defence, attack, Hit dice etc.


Now a post on another thread talked about Hackmaster doing something similar but I have no experience of that system.

In any case the tricky bit is creating the sub-classes that feel they have character and a uniqueness but without a slew of mechanical variants.

HackMaster has:

Fighter
Knight(must play as a Fighter until 5th level then can switch to a Knight)
Paladin(must play as a Knight until 10th level then can switch to a Paladin)
Ranger(closer to the 1st Ed AD&D Outdoor Hunter/fighter of evil humanoids but no spells)
Barbarian
Mage
Thief
Rogue(Social Skills specialist/Con Man)
Assassin
Clerics (14 different types of specialists clerics)

Quote from: greylond;518876HackMaster has:

Fighter
Knight(must play as a Fighter until 5th level then can switch to a Knight)
Paladin(must play as a Knight until 10th level then can switch to a Paladin)
Ranger(closer to the 1st Ed AD&D Outdoor Hunter/fighter of evil humanoids but no spells)
Barbarian
Mage
Thief
Rogue(Social Skills specialist/Con Man)
Assassin
Clerics (14 different types of specialists clerics)

Hey greylond since you are the go to Hackmaster guy and on aother thread you mentioned that in HM when you level you get points to spend on a bunch of options can you confirm that and is there a good link to examples?

Yes, I can confirm it.

If it helps I'll start a new thread. I've got an example character I recently made up. I'll post that and then an example of his going up a level.

Quote from: greylond;518884Yes, I can confirm it.

If it helps I'll start a new thread. I've got an example character I recently made up. I'll post that and then an example of his going up a level.

thanks mate

Funny enough a D20 inspired game I tinker with from time to time everyone starts as: Fighter, Mage, Rogue, or Cleric. Call that basic training. You're just a trainee in that class until level 3 or so then you become the next "full" class.

Of course you can specialize in Fighter and be a Warrior, or Cleric and be a Priest.

On the other hand you pick up some Fighter/Rogue/Cleric and you can be a Ranger (with spells) or drop the cleric and have two Fighter levels and be a Hunter.  Follow the Cleric but stay Neutral? Be a Druid. Follow a Fighter/Fighter/Cleric path and be a Paladin, or stick to Mage for a dozen levels and be an Archmage.

I'd have another way of grouping them, though this doesn't perhaps fit with most people's expectations.

Physical
 Fighter
  Barbarian
  Cavalier
  Ranger
 Thief
   Assasin
Monk      

Mental
 Cleric
  Priest
 Mage
  Illusionist
 Druid
 
Social
 Bard
 Rogue
 Warlord

Obviously with some overlap in two or all three areas.

Trying to go to far into loaded terminology, I think the point is that you can place them into iconic tactical roles.

The Fighting Man, Paladin and Barbarian are all 'Tanks' or defensive fighters, what really defines them is they can go toe to toe with the big guy.

The Magic-User, Sorcerer and Warlock are all 'Artillery', what you expect them to do in a fight is stand at the back and ring on the big magical attacks that either deal lots of damage to one thing or some damage to everything.

The Cleric, Druid and Warlord are all 'Healers', you want them keeping the rest of your group standing.

The Assassin, Ranger and Thief are all 'Flankers' or offensive fighters, they cant take damage so they must rely on positioning or surprise in combat.

Which leaves the last three as either having no fixed combat role, or having a very specialist one.

Of course, that is just the archetypal role, you can easily break out of your role with the right kit/build/whatever.


A more important question, was the Cavalier ever a core class?

Quote from: jadrax;519129Trying to go to far into loaded terminology, I think the point is that you can place them into iconic tactical roles.

The Fighting Man, Paladin and Barbarian are all 'Tanks' or defensive fighters, what really defines them is they can go toe to toe with the big guy.

The Magic-User, Sorcerer and Warlock are all 'Artillery', what you expect them to do in a fight is stand at the back and ring on the big magical attacks that either deal lots of damage to one thing or some damage to everything.

The Cleric, Druid and Warlord are all 'Healers', you want them keeping the rest of your group standing.

The Assassin, Ranger and Thief are all 'Flankers' or offensive fighters, they cant take damage so they must rely on positioning or surprise in combat.

Which leaves the last three as either having no fixed combat role, or having a very specialist one.

Of course, that is just the archetypal role, you can easily break out of your role with the right kit/build/whatever.


A more important question, was the Cavalier ever a core class?

The roles based classification assumes that everything is about combat though.

It also assumes that the basic assumptions of combat are identical to the ones in 3rd / 4th edition D&D. Which is untrue for... well, anything other than 3rd / 4th edition D&D.*

No other version of D&D distinguishes between defensive "Tanks" and offensive "Strikers", since no other version shamelessly copies the assumptions of MMORPGs. No other version of D&D limits spellcasters to either "Artillery" or "Healer", since no other version was written by designers who were so limited in their understanding of the game that they couldn't possibly imagine anything else to do with spells.

*As a note, it logically follows from this that these tactical roles are anything but "iconic". Show me an archetypal "defensive fighter" or "offensive fighter" figure from fiction or legend. You can't, there's only "fighter". That is iconic.

Quote from: Premier;519164Show me an archetypal "defensive fighter" or "offensive fighter" figure from fiction or legend. You can't, there's only "fighter". That is iconic.

Ajax and Odysseus.

And I think you are confusing focus with limitations, just because your the artillery focus dosen't mean you can't have a whole heap of tricks besides. But when D&D climbed out of its war game roots all these roles where clearly defined. Only the terminology has changed.

At its core, big honking AC guy and lightly armoured archer guy are different.

QuoteAjax and Odysseus.

Where exactly does it say in the Illiad that Ajax is really good at protecting himself but only so-so on the attack, or that Odysseus has strong blows but is sort of fragile? Please give us the citation.

Quote from: jadrax;519171And I think you are confusing focus with limitations, just because your the artillery focus dosen't mean you can't have a whole heap of tricks besides.

And I think you're confusing "element" with "focus". Chucking fireballs and the like is an element of what a wizard is (pre-WotC, anyway). One of many elements, each carrying the same weight; and a wizard concentrating on non-damage dealing combat spells or even non-combat spells is just as viable as one concentrating on damage output. It is NOT a "focus" in that it's not the main thing next to which everything else is auxiliary tricks and window dressing.

QuoteBut when D&D climbed out of its war game roots all these roles where clearly defined. Only the terminology has changed.

At its core, big honking AC guy and lightly armoured archer guy are different.

Not true, sorry. In a miniatures wargame, yes. For NPCs who always have whatever equipment the DM wants them to have, yes. But as far as D&D PCs are concerned, big honking AC guy also has a bow, and archer guy also has good armour, because they've either bought it in a shop or looted it from enemies. The rules of D&D (again, pre-WotC) are specifically set up to reward that sort of multi-functionality and to punish this sort of specialisation. Sure, you CAN refuse to buy ranged weapons for your guy, but you'll be crippling yourself by not having ranged capability while receiving no compensation whatsoever. You also CAN refuse to buy armour for your archer, but, again, you'll be crippling yourself, because you'll be that much easier to hit while receiving no reward for being unarmoured (excepting some highly situational benefits like swimming or running away faster, but these will be almost always outweighted by the odium of having an AC of 9-10.)

This is the original concept of the Fighting Man: a character who's good at hitting things AND has a good armour class (which means heavy armour), AND has high HP, AND can fight at range or in close combat equally well. This was the concept of the Fighter until WotC. The notion that your fighting character must choose between either having a high damage output OR being able to take hits was introduced by 3rd ed.. It is NOT inherent in D&D.

Quote from: Premier;519174Where exactly does it say in the Illiad that Ajax is really good at protecting himself but only so-so on the attack, or that Odysseus has strong blows but is sort of fragile? Please give us the citation

That's not the same thing, your getting tied up in game mechanics. Ajax was the archetypal front line fighter, big strong and massive. Odysseus was slight, cunning and relied on trickery and intelligence. There's nothing to stop a defensive fighter doing huge damage, indeed Achilles (who was invulnerable) was also a death machine. But its still Odysseus through tactics and trickery who wins the day. (Which is kind of the moral, and gets explored even more in the Odyssey). Ajax charged his foes and cut through hordes of lesser men, if Odysseus had tried that he would have been going home on his shield.

It's a pretty common fictional trope, I could have said B.A. Barraccus and Hannibal Smith instead.

If the word 'focus' upsets you as terminology, I can happy accept element instead. As jibbajibba pointed out, where already dissecting the wings off the butterfly here, as there's a huge chunk of the game that's not about fighting that's excluded here.

In your final example, that true if Archer Guy is a Fighting Man. But as soon as you have the Thief with his abilities of stealth, climbing and other ways of getting advantage on the combat, you have a far superior light armour fighter. Which as an aside leads to one of the problems with the fighting Man, in that his versatility goes down each time a new 'type' of warrior comes along and nicks part of his portfolio. That I am afraid, pre-dates WotC by years. Hell, most of this stuff I was having the exact same discussions back when I was in secondary school (only you know, without the internet).

Quote from: jadrax;519176If the word 'focus' upsets you as terminology, I can happy accept element instead. As jibbajibba pointed out, where already dissecting the wings off the butterfly here, as there's a huge chunk of the game that's not about fighting that's excluded here.

It's not a question of what word we use. The point of contention is that in your post, you've presented the assumption that Artillery Blasting is the primary thing that defines a wizard, and everything else he might do is just secondary. I do not accept that, and maintain my point that the wizard's Artillery Blasting aspect is in no way more important, integral or core to the concept as any aspects of the character. (Again, excepting WotCD&D, where the other aspects have been all but eliminated as a matter of conscious design choice.)

And I'm not excluding the huge chunk of game that's not about fighting, because doing so would be going off topic. This thread isn't about "How you categorise classes in combat", it's about "How you categorise classes, full stop."

QuoteIn your final example, that true if Archer Guy is a Fighting Man. But as soon as you have the Thief with his abilities of stealth, climbing and other ways of getting advantage on the combat, you have a far superior light armour fighter.

...in WotC D&D. Not anywhere else. Anywhere else, the Thief's tactical role in combat is somewhere between "highly peripheral, maybe throwing darts at the enemy wizard to disrupt casting" and, on a more fundamental level, "None. He's NOT A COMBAT CLASS."

Because that's what the case is. Before WotC, the Thief does not have an edge or specialisation in combat. He is, in all possible respects, inferior to the Fighter and arguably the Cleric. He had plenty of good stuff to do outside combat, and the price for that was relative uselessness IN combat. It was only 3rd. ed. which invented the notion that every class must contribute to a fight equally, turning the Thief from a sneaky, thiefy, trap-disably scouting noncombatant into some sort of lightly armed but heavy-hitting warrior reaver. So just to recap the argument I've been making all along: your classification of classes by combat roles is NOT valid for D&D in general, only specifically for the new editions.

QuoteWhich as an aside leads to one of the problems with the fighting Man, in that his versatility goes down each time a new 'type' of warrior comes along and nicks part of his portfolio. That I am afraid, pre-dates WotC by years. Hell, most of this stuff I was having the exact same discussions back when I was in secondary school (only you know, without the internet).

Well, one might argue that the breaking up of the niche started before WotC, but it was WotC who really took the ball and ran with it. But that's not a problem with the Fighting Man, it's a problem with the game design involved as a whole.

Quote from: Premier;519179It's not a question of what word we use. The point of contention is that in your post, you've presented the assumption that Artillery Blasting is the primary thing that defines a wizard, and everything else he might do is just secondary. I do not accept that, and maintain my point that the wizard's Artillery Blasting aspect is in no way more important, integral or core to the concept as any aspects of the character. (Again, excepting WotCD&D, where the other aspects have been all but eliminated as a matter of conscious design choice.)

I struggle to think of a role of a wizard that matches up to its role as artillery. It's what makes the class unique. Look at the shear number of Damage spells compared to everything else. They can do other things, and indeed you could build one that did not do Artillery at all, but you would be making a concious decision to play against the norm. And again, i think your language is unnecessary judgemental, saying things are 'Just Secondary' as if every secondary was unimportant. Just because yon categorise things in an order dosen't mean everything apart from what is at the top of the list becomes worthless.

QuoteAnd I'm not excluding the huge chunk of game that's not about fighting, because doing so would be going off topic. This thread isn't about "How you categorise classes in combat", it's about "How you categorise classes, full stop."

Certainly I think is 5th that's probably the way it will go, If skills are removed and placed on stats, I can't see what out of combat roles are going to be based on Class. I get the impression if you want to play the social guy, you will take high Cha and then pick whatever class you want. So if you want to play a Noble type, you could be a noble Fighter, Wizard or even Thief without any real penalty.

Quote...in WotC D&D. Not anywhere else. Anywhere else, the Thief's tactical role in combat is somewhere between "highly peripheral, maybe throwing darts at the enemy wizard to disrupt casting" and, on a more fundamental level, "None. He's NOT A COMBAT CLASS."

Because that's what the case is. Before WotC, the Thief does not have an edge or specialisation in combat. He is, in all possible respects, inferior to the Fighter and arguably the Cleric. He had plenty of good stuff to do outside combat, and the price for that was relative uselessness IN combat. It was only 3rd. ed. which invented the notion that every class must contribute to a fight equally, turning the Thief from a sneaky, thiefy, trap-disably scouting noncombatant into some sort of lightly armed but heavy-hitting warrior reaver.

All i can really say to that is that's not my experience in playing the game. There was plenty a good Thief player could do in combat, which a fighter or cleric couldn't do because of their lack of skills/armour. Indeed one GM renamed the class Scouts and removed all the thief trappings because it was essentially a military campaign, and out of the 7 players we had 2 pure thieves and one multi-class. Stealth, Mobility and indeed Backstab are all viable combat abilities that other classes lacked or where not as good at.

Quote from: jadrax;519176That's not the same thing, your getting tied up in game mechanics. Ajax was the archetypal front line fighter, big strong and massive. Odysseus was slight, cunning and relied on trickery and intelligence. There's nothing to stop a defensive fighter doing huge damage, indeed Achilles (who was invulnerable) was also a death machine. But its still Odysseus through tactics and trickery who wins the day. (Which is kind of the moral, and gets explored even more in the Odyssey). Ajax charged his foes and cut through hordes of lesser men, if Odysseus had tried that he would have been going home on his shield.

It's a pretty common fictional trope, I could have said B.A. Barraccus and Hannibal Smith instead.

If the word 'focus' upsets you as terminology, I can happy accept element instead. As jibbajibba pointed out, where already dissecting the wings off the butterfly here, as there's a huge chunk of the game that's not about fighting that's excluded here.

In your final example, that true if Archer Guy is a Fighting Man. But as soon as you have the Thief with his abilities of stealth, climbing and other ways of getting advantage on the combat, you have a far superior light armour fighter. Which as an aside leads to one of the problems with the fighting Man, in that his versatility goes down each time a new 'type' of warrior comes along and nicks part of his portfolio. That I am afraid, pre-dates WotC by years. Hell, most of this stuff I was having the exact same discussions back when I was in secondary school (only you know, without the internet).

You got you mythology wrong Bro.. Odysseus was so strong that he was the only man on Ithaca able to string his bow... its why he has 18(00) strength in Deity and Demi-gods by the way.

I know its irrelevant but I am in an airport with an hour to kill so ... meh...

Now you do highlight one of the shortfalls of DnD, although I suspect unwittingly, In reality its almost impossible to shoot a longbow in plate armour. The armour doesn't articulate correctly, the line of the string is restricted by sticky-out bits of metal and steel gauntlets really weren't meant for notching arrows.

I still don't really think the MMO roles are a good match though. The best missile guy is always going to be a fighter with a bow and never a thief, not only does the fighter have a better to hit, more attacks and later specialisation but the thief's backstab bonus doesn't apply to missile fire so it's really a bit of a waste all round.

Now I for one would like to see the lightly armoured fighter encouraged in DnD which is why I am pro AC getting bonus with level. I think lightly armoured fast warriors are a genuine archetype, from fiction, history and myth so a reasonable way to generate a fighter like that would be good, but since the tools in DnD are crude, being HP and AC, it's hard to do within the framework.

Quote from: jibbajibba;519198You got you mythology wrong Bro.. Odysseus was so strong that he was the only man on Ithaca able to string his bow... its why he has 18(00) strength in Deity and Demi-gods by the way.

From my recollection, it was a trick bow, and he pulled it by doing something clever with his foot?

Quote from: jadrax;519207From my recollection, it was a trick bow, and he pulled it by doing something clever with his foot?

Nope just too strong for anyone else to string

Quote from: jibbajibba;519209Nope just too strong for anyone else to string

The thing about the foot, (having looked it up) is conjecture based on how you would actually string a recurved bow. However, the Ian Johnston translation, which is what I have to hand describes it thus:

Quote"But shrewd Odysseus, once he'd raised the bow and looked it over on all sides, then—just as someone really skilled at playing the lyre and singing has no trouble when he loops a string around a brand-new peg, tying the twisted sheep's gut down at either end— that how easily Odysseus strung that great bow."

Dunno, that's not a description of a test of strength to me, more point out how skilled he is. Especially as I do not recall him being described as particularly strong anywhere else.

Edit: The Samuel Butler translation I think is even more explicit in pointing out its not strength that's important here.

QuoteFor long Odysseus stood with the bow in his hands, handling it as a minstrel handles a lyre when he stretches a cord or tightens a peg. Then he bent the great bow; he bent it without an effort, and at his touch the bow-string made a sound that was like the cry of a swallow. The wooers seeing him bend that mighty bow felt, every man of them, a sharp pain at the heart. They saw Odysseus take up an arrow and fit it to the string. He held the notch, and he drew the string, and he shot the bronze-weighted arrow straight through the holes in the back of the axe-heads.

Quote from: Premier;519164It also assumes that the basic assumptions of combat are identical to the ones in 3rd / 4th edition D&D. Which is untrue for... well, anything other than 3rd / 4th edition D&D.*

No other version of D&D distinguishes between defensive "Tanks" and offensive "Strikers", since no other version shamelessly copies the assumptions of MMORPGs. No other version of D&D limits spellcasters to either "Artillery" or "Healer", since no other version was written by designers who were so limited in their understanding of the game that they couldn't possibly imagine anything else to do with spells.

*As a note, it logically follows from this that these tactical roles are anything but "iconic". Show me an archetypal "defensive fighter" or "offensive fighter" figure from fiction or legend. You can't, there's only "fighter". That is iconic.

I kind of half agree with you. The TSR D&D roles map closer to "infantry", "artillery", and I guess "reinforcement" - fighters are infantry in that they slug it out and are expected to last a long time slugging it out (but they're more like modern infantry in that they can engage at range as well as close-in, since bows are good weapons); magic-users are artillery in that they are fragile and do not want anything getting next to them; clerics would then reinforce the other infantry (and are somewhat less good at it than the fighters); thieves pitch in where they can.

Also, your TSR D&D combat role tends to depend on your ability scores. If you're a thief and the best all-around athlete in the party you're going on the front lines.

On the other hand the 3e cleric is much less limited to healing and the 3e wizard is more tolerant of getting up close and personal as well, because they're overall more powerful classes. I don't buy that 3e limits their "roles" (the tank/striker/artillery/healer thing) more. It's the other way around.

Quote from: jadrax;519182I struggle to think of a role of a wizard that matches up to its role as artillery. It's what makes the class unique. Look at the shear number of Damage spells compared to everything else. They can do other things, and indeed you could build one that did not do Artillery at all, but you would be making a concious decision to play against the norm.

Not as much in TSR D&D (especially before 2e -- the spell list exploded with 2e and splats).

Worse for this argument, mages could not just select spells from the list in the rules. They had to find them somehow in the campaign world and get them in their spellbook. In OD&D (post Supplement I) and AD&D the caster might not be able to learn a spell even if he discovered it.  2e added schools of magic which meant some casters might not even be able to attempt to learn the artillery spells.

Lots of casters in games I've been in/ran since 1975 did not have a lot of artillery spells -- some by choice, but many because even if they had wanted them, they never found many to add to their spell books in the game.

To be honest, I have zero interest in classifying classes by type of combat they are theoretically best at if played the way the designer assumes they will be played. I want the classes to be general archetypes defining what people do in the game as a whole, not just by what they do in combat. Or if they simply must be classified by combat ability, I'd like them classified as "combatant" (most class abilities revolve around combat, out of combat abilities are clearly secondary), "semi-combatant" (many class abilities are not directly related to combat, but the class can hold their own in combat in needed), and "non-combatant" (most class abilities are not directly related to combat, the class should only go into direct combat as a last resort.  Non-combatant classes are necessary, btw, as not every tabletop player is interested enough in combat to be happy with a character focused on it.

The problem with using MMO combat roles is they are based on games where every character is expected to be very capable in combat and all characters need to be very capable in combat because -- like most computer-ran games -- most of what you can do is going to be combat.  I don't want that type of influence in D&D.

Quote from: jadrax;519182I struggle to think of a role of a wizard that matches up to its role as artillery. It's what makes the class unique. Look at the shear number of Damage spells compared to everything else. They can do other things, and indeed you could build one that did not do Artillery at all, but you would be making a concious decision to play against the norm.

I just had a look at the 1e PHB M-U spell lists. I didn't go past 2nd level spells, but there are a total of 54 spells listed in those first two, and I see only three damage spells.

Burning Hands
Magic Missile
Shocking Grasp

That's 18-to-1, man.  There are several other controller-ish spells like Web and Sleep, which would be handy in a combat, but the 1e wizard doesn't get to blow up an entire room full of goblins until he's 5th level.  There are plenty of spells that have no combat utility at all, and plenty more that have only incidental combat utility.

Again this post contains terminology, people might want to replace some words to stop their heads exploding. I am mainly picking an choosing words that make the most descriptive sense to me.

Quote from: TAFMSV;519380I just had a look at the 1e PHB M-U spell lists. I didn't go past 2nd level spells, but there are a total of 54 spells listed in those first two, and I see only three damage spells.

Burning Hands
Magic Missile
Shocking Grasp

That's 18-to-1, man.

Yes, well I think there is a reason Wizards are described as weak at low levels.

QuoteThere are several other controller-ish spells like Web and Sleep, which would be handy in a combat, but the 1e wizard doesn't get to blow up an entire room full of goblins until he's 5th level.  

Now 'Control' is an interesting one. I am not convinced it really exists as an iconic tactical role outside of computer games.

It seems to me that in the computer games they took the Wizards role of Artillery and split it into AoE and Single Target, and destroyed the Light Tanks 'Flanker' role and turned them into what people are calling a 'Striker'. Which I think is a retrograde step.

Then to make up for the lost singe target damage, they started giving casters lost of ways stun and do 'crowd control'. Although 4th seems to use the word 'control' purely for blowing up lots of shit at once.

I don't remember 'crowd control' really happening to any extent in D&D, and I think that is the limitations of computer games coming into effect. I would be interested to hear if anyone has any different experiences?

QuoteThere are plenty of spells that have no combat utility at all, and plenty more that have only incidental combat utility.

Undoubtedly, and their nice for the wizard and in no way am I saying they should not exist or do not add anything to the class. But these spells are not helpful for determining a Wizard's most likely tactical role in combat.

Quote from: jadrax;519455Now 'Control' is an interesting one. I am not convinced it really exists as an iconic tactical role outside of computer games.

...and D&D4e

Quote from: jadrax;519455It seems to me that in the computer games they took the Wizards role of Artillery and split it into AoE and Single Target, and destroyed the Light Tanks 'Flanker' role and turned them into what people are calling a 'Striker'. Which I think is a retrograde step.

Then to make up for the lost singe target damage, they started giving casters lost of ways stun and do 'crowd control'. Although 4th seems to use the word 'control' purely for blowing up lots of shit at once.

I don't remember 'crowd control' really happening to any extent in D&D, and I think that is the limitations of computer games coming into effect. I would be interested to hear if anyone has any different experiences?

The limitations of computer games assigned wizards the role of artillery, since computer games didn't do the parts that wizards are good at, like reading dead languages, altering people's minds, floating through the air, manipulating objects at a distance, frightening strangers, learning important facts by communicating with inanimate objects, breaking warded portals, changing appearances of things and people, &c.  That's the original RPG wizard, and what I would consider iconic.  The iconic wizard in a typical melee is, as likely as not, dead weight.  

Quote from: jadrax;519455Undoubtedly, and their nice for the wizard and in no way am I saying they should not exist or do not add anything to the class. But these spells are not helpful for determining a Wizard's most likely tactical role in combat.

On the contrary, they tell you plenty about the M-U's combat role, which is STAY OUT OF THE WAY.  They aren't designed to be artillery (not with regularity, at least).  The role of a wizard is to be a wizard.

Quote from: TAFMSV;519468On the contrary, they tell you plenty about the M-U's combat role, which is STAY OUT OF THE WAY.  They aren't designed to be artillery (not with regularity, at least).  The role of a wizard is to be a wizard.

You know, you play experience is actually so far from mine I am actually lost for words. It's a wide wide world indeed.

Quote from: jadrax;519176That's not the same thing, your getting tied up in game mechanics. Ajax was the archetypal front line fighter, big strong and massive. Odysseus was slight, cunning and relied on trickery and intelligence. There's nothing to stop a defensive fighter doing huge damage, indeed Achilles (who was invulnerable) was also a death machine. But its still Odysseus through tactics and trickery who wins the day. (Which is kind of the moral, and gets explored even more in the Odyssey). Ajax charged his foes and cut through hordes of lesser men, if Odysseus had tried that he would have been going home on his shield.

It's a pretty common fictional trope, I could have said B.A. Barraccus and Hannibal Smith instead.

Let me weigh in and point out that nothing in your description of Ajax screams 'defensive' to me.  In fact, I'd point out that you are trying to draw a line between 'fighters that fight and fighters that plan' which, frankly, is idiotic in an RPG.

BA Barraccus and Ajax and Achillies fucking murderize people. THat is offensive. THey are big and strong and hard and they wade into hordes of lesser men and murderize them. That is offensive.

Oh, you say, but they are hard and armored... so that's defensive, right? I mean, Achillies is invulnerable!

And hopefully, I've just enlightened you.  Dudes that wade into hordes of lesser men and murderize them are FIGHTERS. THey have to be hard to survive their murderizing, they have to murderize in order for anyone to, you know, care!

Not that Odessyus was exactly a slouch in murderizing motherfuckers either.

Quote from: Spike;519481Let me weigh in and point out that nothing in your description of Ajax screams 'defensive' to me.  In fact, I'd point out that you are trying to draw a line between 'fighters that fight and fighters that plan' which, frankly, is idiotic in an RPG.

BA Barraccus and Ajax and Achillies fucking murderize people. THat is offensive. THey are big and strong and hard and they wade into hordes of lesser men and murderize them. That is offensive.

Oh, you say, but they are hard and armored... so that's defensive, right? I mean, Achillies is invulnerable!

And hopefully, I've just enlightened you.  Dudes that wade into hordes of lesser men and murderize them are FIGHTERS. THey have to be hard to survive their murderizing, they have to murderize in order for anyone to, you know, care!

Yes, I agree that the terminology could be better. I am not trying to say a defensive fighter shouldn't do damage. The key is he does that damage by going toe-to-toe. In many cases to turn out a very old cliché the best defence is a strong defence, and I think again Computer Games and 4ed are responsible for redefining the role as something nonsensical.

Where as the Odysseus style fighter to my mind is not so much 'a fighter who plans' as a fighter whose key role is using mobility to disrupt your opponent's tactics. Flanker or Skirmisher are both terms I have seen used.

But that's not accurate to Odessyus or Hannibal.

Odessyus planned the Trojan Horse, he tricked a Cyclopes into thinking he was No One.. That was pretty much the entire point of recruiting him, he was cunning and clever and a planner. And, like every Myceanan Hero, he was also a badass, but that's neither here nor there.

That's the point I was trying to make. Subdividing Fighters tends to mean you try to weaken them in areas where you want other subdivisions to be strong, but that doesn't work.

THe Baseline for a dude who's schtick is he's a fighter is 'badass'. Everything else is flavor put on top of badass.

Quote from: Spike;519491But that's not accurate to Odessyus or Hannibal.

O.k., so with the A-Team example because I think its the simpler. Every week (from what I remember) the A-Team wound get in a fight, and every week there would be an Evil B.A. for B.A. to fight.

B.A.'s role is to counteract the Evil B.A. (and Evil B.A. mirrors that), as soon as one of them gets lose the fight is over because they can take down everything else on their own. That's a defensive fighter, front line fighter, Big Tough Guy whatever you want to call it.

Hannibal Smith is not in that role, what he is doing in the fight is different. But having different tactical roles in combat dosen't diminish either of them.

Quote from: jadrax;519455Undoubtedly, and their nice for the wizard and in no way am I saying they should not exist or do not add anything to the class. But these spells are not helpful for determining a Wizard's most likely tactical role in combat.

That's okay as I have no interest in classifying classes by their "role in combat". A character's "role in combat" should be decided by the player, not by the character class and character classes should not be designed around artificial combat roles.