|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 11:24PM
#101
|
|
|
Right from the beginning you're playing a necromancer, but you aren't the be all end all of zombie raising goodness.
Well,yeah.
The point is that instantly, upon choosing the class, you feel like you're playing that class. I think the best way to do this is by saying 'screw multiclassing' and just creating subclasses for exactly what you want to play.
Multiclassing balance can take care of itself, in its own modules. If multiclassing causes problems... let the multiclassing modules deal with those problems.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 9:32PM
#102
|
|
|
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.
Of course it would absolutely make sense, if that was the type of experience you wanted and the type of character that you wanted to play.
Some people want to become a knight. Some people want to be a knight. Certainly you can see the difference and how that could appeal to different people.
And both characters being played by those people should use the Knight class, IMO.
Because a squire that wishes to become a Knight should use the Knight class, if such a class exists.
Someone that's, say, a thief that wishes to be a knight might start with rogue, mc knight later on, and take a knightly advanced theme, but someone that starts out on the path to Knighthood, training to be a Knight, is going to fight like a Knight, and use (perhaps the cheapest possible form of) a Knight's gear, or at least know how.
Class features can be alloted at levels so that heavy fluff elements like Knightly prestige that gets you a free room in any lord's castle or town baracks, and that sort of thing, come at later levels, or they could be things that you have the option to pick up at different levels, so that my full Knight at level one character has them right away, and someone else's Knight at level 5 character has them when it makes sense for them.
Of course there should be other elements for such characters, such as themes/advanced themes, to better allow us all to make the characters we want to make, but I don't think that broad, important concepts that we know, without any possible doubt, that many people will want to play, should be built only as lvl1+ options.
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 05, 2012 - 10:11PM
#103
|
|
|
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.
Knight class =/= Knight of Solamnia class. If there had been a Knight class, he would have been one. He just wouldn't have been a Knight of Solamnia, which would have been some campaign specific element that you can tack onto a character, or something.
Doesn't matter.
What matters is how it should be done now.
And how it should be done now is what I already described.
Raistlin doesn't wait until after taking his test to become a wizard. He waits until after his test to become a Red Robed Wizard of High Sorcery.
Also, trust me, I know every single thing you said already. I've read the Chronicles almost as many times as I've read LoTR, and not to mention the Twins books, the Meetings Sextet, and a handful of others that involve the core group.
And Dragonlance what the setting we played in when we played 2e.
Excuse the double post:
As for the original topic at hand, I'm torn on the issue. On the one hand, no one wants to play a character that doesn't feel like they are fulfilling their class until a higher level. On the other hand, if you don't put tempting features later in the progression tree, what is there to look forward to? What is the point of leveling up, aside from the linear stat progression?
New spells, feats, advanced themes that further specialize or generalize your character, new things to do with skills, access to new types of gear or other resources, and probably a dozen other things I didn't just think of as soon as I read this. :P
Also, why is a necromancer a level 5 concept?
We don't insist that a normal wizard is not a wizard until he gains a certain level of power. Surely, many (if not most) wizard PCs are actually apprentices, yes? Yet, we call them wizards, even though they aren't inside the game world.
Why not the same thing with a necromancer?
Aviose : Sturm was a Knight waiting to be recognized as such. Mechanically, there was no difference between a knight and a fighter that uses plate and a shield and a longsword and has an awesome mustache, and holds themselves to a paladin-like code of mustache care.
He didn't suddenly become a Knight. He suddenly became a Knight of Solamnia. He was always a Knight.
DMgorgon: Knight of The Round Table is an advanced theme. They were all knights before they became one of Arthur's Round Table Knights. As squires, they were training to be knights. If the fought, they found as a knight fights.
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 05, 2012 - 10:37PM
#104
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
The point is that instantly, upon choosing the class, you feel like you're playing that class. I think the best way to do this is by saying 'screw multiclassing' and just creating subclasses for exactly what you want to play.
I would like to create a 1st level wizard with a dream of becoming a necromancer. At first he is just an innocent 16 year old kid, but along the way he becomes more and more ruthless. Nevertheless he still has a memory of being an innocent kid, and the other characters can remind him of the way that he has changed. This story is easier to tell if he starts out as a wizard and becomes a necromancer later on.
I remember when one of my cyclopedia fighters reached 9th level and became an avenger. That was good fun because it allowed me to roleplay his transition in to a religous maniac. I really liked that.
But we all have different wishes for 5ed.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 10:56PM
#105
|
|
|
The point is that instantly, upon choosing the class, you feel like you're playing that class. I think the best way to do this is by saying 'screw multiclassing' and just creating subclasses for exactly what you want to play.
I would like to create a 1st level wizard with a dream of becoming a necromancer. At first he is just an innocent 16 year old kid, but along the way he becomes more and more ruthless. Nevertheless he still has a memory of being an innocent kid, and the other characters can remind him of the way that he has changed. This story is easier to tell if he starts out as a wizard and becomes a necromancer later on.
I remember when one of my cyclopedia fighters reached 9th level and became an avenger. That was good fun because it allowed me to roleplay his transition in to a religous maniac. I really liked that.
But we all have different wishes for 5ed.
This is why I support a strong multiclassing system that doesn't require you to do something at level one or jump through a bunch of hoops in order to get a signifigent part of what that other class does.
I also support having themes that can be taken at later levels for many things.
I just don't support denying level one support for concepts that many will want to play from level one.
There's no reason that a system in which you can start as a level one necromancer (let's say as it's own class) and/or with a level one theme and/or multiclass into necromancer after level one and/or take an post level one advanced theme for necromancy wouldn't support the character you describe, and what I'd want if I were to play a necromancer*.
*A character that apprentices to a necromancer, and thus spends his entire career learning how to do necromancer things, and is thus best represented by just taking necromancer as his class at level one. Which is the same way I've always seen any wizard, bard, most paladins or fighters that are "knightly", etc being played when we've started at level one.
In-world, they're training to become the thing after which their class is named. (knights haven't generally been available as a level one class, but nothing mechanically changed about the character when they got knighted. The changes were all in-world. had there been a knight class, they'd have taken it from level one, and literally nothing in-world would be different)
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 06, 2012 - 12:43AM
#106
|
|
|
The point is that instantly, upon choosing the class, you feel like you're playing that class. I think the best way to do this is by saying 'screw multiclassing' and just creating subclasses for exactly what you want to play.
I would like to create a 1st level wizard with a dream of becoming a necromancer. At first he is just an innocent 16 year old kid, but along the way he becomes more and more ruthless. Nevertheless he still has a memory of being an innocent kid, and the other characters can remind him of the way that he has changed. This story is easier to tell if he starts out as a wizard and becomes a necromancer later on.
I remember when one of my cyclopedia fighters reached 9th level and became an avenger. That was good fun because it allowed me to roleplay his transition in to a religous maniac. I really liked that.
But we all have different wishes for 5ed.
I wish for you to get what you want. My suggestion applies if you want to play the theme/class you want from day 1. If you want to NOT play the theme/class you want from day 1 (which is what you describe, starting as a wizard, turning into a necromancer later), then my suggestion wouldn't apply, of course.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 06, 2012 - 3:51AM
#107
|
|
|
I didn't read the whole thread but I really don't understand what the problem is here.
If the problem is having to go "Mystic" then "Necromancer", it's not a problem. Themes are only a feat delivery mechanism. Just rename "Mystic" to "Apprentice Necromancer". If the Mystic is not exactly what you want, just swap a feat or two to get what you want and the problem is sloved, you still have your necromancer from level 1.
If the problem is not being able to animate an army of zombies at the beginning of your adventuring career, there's alway the option to start the campaign at a higher level. A lot of people like going from zero to hero so the first few levels should be dedicated to that. Those that want to start as bad ass necromancers should start at a higher level.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 06, 2012 - 5:22AM
#108
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2004
|
Exactly, just because the game calls you something else, in play you can call yourself what you want. For example, I've played a fair number of rogues. If someone asks me what class I am (in game) I tell them Adventurer or maybe Explorer. In my opinion, a Rogue is never going to tell other people he's a Rogue or a Thief. Just like no Thug would even call himself a Thug.
What's important is that each and every base class includes options that are compatable with their future Themes. In other words, if the game goes Wizard -> Necromancer (at 6), there should be spells that makes a future necromancer feel like a necromancer enough that in-game he can call himself one and display his prowess.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 06, 2012 - 5:26AM
#109
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
I didn't read the whole thread but I really don't understand what the problem is here.
If the problem is having to go "Mystic" then "Necromancer", it's not a problem. Themes are only a feat delivery mechanism. Just rename "Mystic" to "Apprentice Necromancer". If the Mystic is not exactly what you want, just swap a feat or two to get what you want and the problem is sloved, you still have your necromancer from level 1.
If the problem is not being able to animate an army of zombies at the beginning of your adventuring career, there's alway the option to start the campaign at a higher level. A lot of people like going from zero to hero so the first few levels should be dedicated to that. Those that want to start as bad ass necromancers should start at a higher level.
Precisely. The feat packages should be flexible enough that you can modify them to approximate what you want from level 1.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 06, 2012 - 6:28AM
#110
|
|
|
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.
Of course it would absolutely make sense, if that was the type of experience you wanted and the type of character that you wanted to play.
Some people want to become a knight. Some people want to be a knight. Certainly you can see the difference and how that could appeal to different people.
And both characters being played by those people should use the Knight class, IMO.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter how it's done, as long as both options (as well as countless other "knightly" options) are viable characters to be played. That squire that turns to the dark side of thievery and the black market doesn't really fit into that knight class.
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.
|
|
|
