|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:10PM
#81
|
|
|
I agree, DoctorBadWolf. I admit it, I was wrong. You can all ridicule me mercilessly now.
Again, I apologize for insulting the great Warlock class and the many cool Warlocks' out there. Just please don't curse me into a toad.
--David
lol no worries. SOrry if I got a bit harsh.
I've had this discussion once or twice already in the last week.
Thanks. Ha ha, I know what you mean. I just saw some more posts insulting warlocks. 'Note to everyone': do 'not' insult the warlock class if you want to live to tell the tale.
Yeah, the warlock and assassin, and occassionally even the ranger, get random flak from people sometimes that don't seem to understand that the game doesn't need to go back to 6 classes or less.
In fact, it shouldn't. That would be bad.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 1:40PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2006
|
Yeah, I totally agree, DoctorBadWolf. I want 'more' classes. Not less classes.  Preferably more classes playable at level 1. --David
David L. Dostaler
Author, Challenger RPG (free)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 2:37PM
#83
|
|
|
Yeah, I totally agree, DoctorBadWolf. I want 'more' classes. Not less classes. Preferably more classes playable at level 1.
--David
If the fighter class was capable of supporting a warrior, barbarian, ranger, gladiator, martial artist, knight, soldier, and various other fighter "classes," what would be the difference? You'd actually get more of your "classes" out of less classes with a broader scope.
*shrug*
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 2:41PM
#84
|
|
|
Yeah, I totally agree, DoctorBadWolf. I want 'more' classes. Not less classes. Preferably more classes playable at level 1.
--David
Yep. That level one is important. There are some concepts that work with being above level one, but even they can be a level one class.
For instance, a level one Knight doesn't have to be a full knight at first level. He will be, and that's why the class is called "Knight". Even if he fails somehow, and doesn't become a knight, he'll be a disgraced "Knight", not just an armsman.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:04PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
Yep. That level one is important. There are some concepts that work with being above level one, but even they can be a level one class.
For instance, a level one Knight doesn't have to be a full knight at first level. He will be, and that's why the class is called "Knight". Even if he fails somehow, and doesn't become a knight, he'll be a disgraced "Knight", not just an armsman.
If you're not a full knight at level one, how is that different from being a Fighter/Knight? (Knight can be a prestige class, advanced theme, paragon path, whatever, in this example. Something that you picked up after level 1.)
Your response addresses my basic problem with the 'everyone should be able to play anything at level 1' opinion; some people want to play things that are basically 'stupendous badass' and some want to play things that are basically 'fell off the turnip truck moments ago'. And a game can't support both of these at the start, because their power level is so very different, and obviously you shouldn't just be able to pick a class that's much stronger.
My basic feeling is that every single class should feel different from level 1. When you stop being able to make new classes that actually feel different, then you've covered everything. We don't need Fighter, Paladin, Knight, Cavalier, Arsmman, Soldier, Infantryman, and Cavalry all of whom play the same at first level. On the other hand, if they all play differently from the very first time you pick up the character, then go nuts. A dozen different 'heavy armor guy on a horse' classes are fine with me as long as they each have their own niche.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 7:00PM
#86
|
|
|
Yep. That level one is important. There are some concepts that work with being above level one, but even they can be a level one class.
For instance, a level one Knight doesn't have to be a full knight at first level. He will be, and that's why the class is called "Knight". Even if he fails somehow, and doesn't become a knight, he'll be a disgraced "Knight", not just an armsman.
If you're not a full knight at level one, how is that different from being a Fighter/Knight? (Knight can be a prestige class, advanced theme, paragon path, whatever, in this example. Something that you picked up after level 1.)
Your a person with all the skills, tactics and gear of a Knight, but not the title, yet. Or, you're a Knight, if it makes sense in-story, and social class features that involve the prestige of a knight could be explained by gaining greater rank without your Order, etc.
Doesn't matter, you're missing the point by getting hung up on an example.
The character has the defining characteristics of the concept from level one, and it's up to them to decide if they are a full member of whatever thing that class represents, or one in training.
And it makes more sense than suddenly gaining access to the skills and tactics you've been training to use when you gain a certain level and take an advanced theme. If you've been training for knighthood since you were a child, then your class should be knight at level one, if knight is goiing to be a mechanically distinct thing at all, whether you've gained the title in game or not.
Because your character is best represented with that class even if he never attains the in game title associated with it, because that's what that character has been training for his or her whole life.
If there were a knight class, Sturm Brightblade would be a member of that class, from day one. It wouldn't make sense to make him wait till he gains knighthood in game and then take some features onto him that he didn't have before.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 7:05PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
I see, I misunderstood your example. You're saying that they're not necessarily a Knight (with the medieval level of nobility that implies), but you're always a knight in terms of combat tactics and style.
I agree with you completely, then. Any set of tactics and skills unique enough to fill out a character concept and play uniquely on a mechanical level should be a class available from level one.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 9:26PM
#88
|
|
|
I see, I misunderstood your example. You're saying that they're not necessarily a Knight (with the medieval level of nobility that implies), but you're always a knight in terms of combat tactics and style.
I agree with you completely, then. Any set of tactics and skills unique enough to fill out a character concept and play uniquely on a mechanical level should be a class available from level one.
Dig it. Previously, some concepts have been held off till later levels simply because there's a narrative desire for them to be something the character achieves later in their carreer, and I say those too should be level one options. Those who need them to be something the character acheives later can simply say that they aren't yet, but in they're in training to be. :P
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 9:57PM
#89
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
It's easier to start a campaign at level 5, than it is to start that campaign at level -4.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 7:00AM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
If there were a knight class, Sturm Brightblade would be a member of that class, from day one. It wouldn't make sense to make him wait till he gains knighthood in game and then take some features onto him that he didn't have before.
Dragonlance was written around the AD&D ruleset. Having to wait until level X to become a Knight of the Rose or level 3 to become a Wizard of High Sorcery was how campaign setting and lore was designed. In the case of Sturm he became a Knight of the Crown much later on. In fact that title was granted to him by Lord Gunthar.
As the DM, I wouldn't not allow a character to create a Knight of the Crown from level 1. That would be a theme only accessible via role playing and effort on the part of the player. The same is true for a WoHS, I would require that he pass the test at level 3 or die.
Regardless, I'm not a fan of having a Knight of Solamnia a new class. The KoS is just a Kit with training rules associated to it. The same is true with the WoHS.
But these are campaign specific classes that have role playing concepts attached to them. In that case, I don't have a problem with level restrictions. But generic themes like the Necromancer, Evoker, etc... don't need to have level restrictions at all.
|
|
|
