|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:41AM
#261
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
what's in a name?
and this is a serious question
if a Fighter can be a preist and a Cleric a knight, a Wizard a warlock and a Thief a monk, what, pray tell, is in a name?
if your class defines who you are as a person, i want none of it. if it defines how a person does what they do, i'm fine with it.
i don't want all Rogues to be thieves or vice-versa. i want to make a Fighter can call him a "thief" (of the break and enter kind). i want to make a Cleric and call him a thief (mimicing a preist of one god to steal tithes or followers to his deity). i want to make a Wizard and call him a thief (using magic to mask his deeds).
i don't want to be told "to be a thief you need to be a Thief".
Which I think is a good thing, but it isn't what a 'class based' game is based upon. When I feel like doing those things I play skill based games, or anything besides a class game. In class games class defines what your character can do, not skills or powers. You can have hybrids that do some of each (which is really what D&D evolved into, a bit with 2nd and fully with 3rd and on), but not in a true game of classes.
In chess can you declare that in this game your bishops will move like a knight? Not and have it still be chess. Same is true in rpgs. AD&D started as a class based game, where only thieves could do thief things. The moment you change that, it's no longer D&D. Might be a better game, or more fun, or more popular...but it's not what it was. That was my only point.
I talk a bit more about it here: community.wizards.com/phoenix182/blog/20...
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:50AM
#262
|
|
|
Which I think is a good thing, but it isn't what a 'class based' game is based upon. When I feel like doing those things I play skill based games, or anything besides a class game. In class games class defines what your character can do, not skills or powers. You can have hybrids that do some of each (which is really what D&D evolved into, a bit with 2nd and fully with 3rd and on), but not in a true game of classes.
In chess can you declare that in this game your bishops will move like a knight? Not and have it still be chess. Same is true in rpgs. AD&D started as a class based game, where only thieves could do thief things. The moment you change that, it's no longer D&D. Might be a better game, or more fun, or more popular...but it's not what it was. That was my only point.
I talk a bit more about it here: community.wizards.com/phoenix182/blog/20...
Arguing that other characters should be able to sneak or climb or listen at a door isn't *inherently* an argument against classes. It's an argument against the thief having a monopoly on those skills. While those skills did define the pre-3e thief, that doesn't tie them to the thief or its descendants forever. I absolutely agree that D&D should stay a class-based game, but that doesn't mean the classes are unworthy of examination.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:59AM
#263
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
Which I think is a good thing, but it isn't what a 'class based' game is based upon. When I feel like doing those things I play skill based games, or anything besides a class game. In class games class defines what your character can do, not skills or powers. You can have hybrids that do some of each (which is really what D&D evolved into, a bit with 2nd and fully with 3rd and on), but not in a true game of classes.
In chess can you declare that in this game your bishops will move like a knight? Not and have it still be chess. Same is true in rpgs. AD&D started as a class based game, where only thieves could do thief things. The moment you change that, it's no longer D&D. Might be a better game, or more fun, or more popular...but it's not what it was. That was my only point.
I talk a bit more about it here: community.wizards.com/phoenix182/blog/20...
Arguing that other characters should be able to sneak or climb or listen at a door isn't *inherently* an argument against classes. It's an argument against the thief having a monopoly on those skills. While those skills did define the pre-3e thief, that doesn't tie them to the thief or its descendants forever. I absolutely agree that D&D should stay a class-based game, but that doesn't mean the classes are unworthy of examination.
I partially agree, and partially disagree. As I said earlier, there's no restriction on other classes doing those things that a thief does...they just don't get them as an ability that they can improve directly and specialize in. If they did, they would no longer be a 'thief' ability, but just an ability that everyone (or at least many people) could utilize. For the most part we call those things skills/nwp, not abilities. THAT does remove the class base of the system UNLESS the class has enough other unique abilities to define it through the loss of those abilities. I talk a LOT about uniqueness in the blog post.
Look at the 2nd edition Thief. Remove all of the thief abilities and make them skills. Now what does the Thief have left? Backstab, Thieve's Cant, Use Scrolls, and arguably Read Languages. That's it. And really, with language skills you can cross Thieve's Cant and Read Languages off that list. So you have a d6 low THAC0 leather wearing character that can read scrolls and maybe once a fight if they're lucky get a single high damage strike on one enemy. Be still my beating heart. No, the ONLY reason a Thief 'CLASS' exists is to be the ONLY one in the party who does thief things (well at least).
I realize many/most may not agree, it's just how we feel about it. ONLY the members of the target classes should be able to do 'X'. Anything else is an entirely different game system, and is NOT 'class based'.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 10:24AM
#264
|
|
|
what's in a name?
and this is a serious question
if a Fighter can be a preist and a Cleric a knight, a Wizard a warlock and a Thief a monk, what, pray tell, is in a name?
if your class defines who you are as a person, i want none of it. if it defines how a person does what they do, i'm fine with it.
i don't want all Rogues to be thieves or vice-versa. i want to make a Fighter can call him a "thief" (of the break and enter kind). i want to make a Cleric and call him a thief (mimicing a preist of one god to steal tithes or followers to his deity). i want to make a Wizard and call him a thief (using magic to mask his deeds).
i don't want to be told "to be a thief you need to be a Thief".
This.
The rogue is the guy with the most skills, the dirty fighting mechanics, mobility and maybe some exploration based special abilities that make him better at certain things than other classes.
Being able to pick pockets, open locks and disable traps should be things any class can access.
AT MOST the rogue should have abilities that make him better than others at those things, but even those abilities should be options the rogue can take, not automatic class features.
A bit like all the skill based utility powers the rogue gets in 4e, making the rogue by far the best thief and trap monkey in the game.
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 ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 3:26PM
#265
|
|
|
what's in a name?
and this is a serious question
A lot.
Seriously, trying opening a independent burger restaurant using the name "McDonald" and see exactly what's in a name.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 4:03PM
#266
|
|
|
what's in a name?
and this is a serious question
A lot.
Seriously, trying opening a independent burger restaurant using the name "McDonald" and see exactly what's in a name.
apples and oranges.
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 ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 5:16PM
#267
|
|
|
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.
Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 5:22PM
#268
|
|
|
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.
Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats?
You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, but you get the idea.)
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 ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 6:49PM
#269
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
I think that's his point. If you take the concept of refluffing, i.e. altering the cosmetics of the class to suit your desires, to its logical extreme, the name for a class is meaningless. Similarly, if you don't allow any reskinning, then a class becomes a straightjacket.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 7:18PM
#270
|
|
|
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.
Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats?
You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, but you get the idea.)
Yes, that would work and keep low level characters more interesting and varied as they won't all have nearly the same feats.
|
|
|
