|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 8:39AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Actually, the rules does say the cleric has to pray, meditate, or do some other time expending action for a certain amount of time to regain spells (unless you DM uses a dial or module to remove it). So that is a RP and Interaction mechanic as the cleric must have some time alone (unless the DM say no).
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 8:58AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
So that is a RP and Interaction mechanic as the cleric must have some time alone (unless the DM say no).
Not really, no.
It's just "Long Rest = get your spell slots back."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 10:20AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Mecahnics are a means to an end and are pointless without an archetypal classification.
In D&D a class isn't playable if it's strictly defined with combat mecahnics only. If all the game did was give you a bunch of classes named Combat Class A, Combat Class B, Combat Class C, the game would not be playable as a role playing system.
Before you can even design a class you need to define a pattern of behavior for such an archetype.
The pattern of behavior of the class should not be confused with an individual character's personality or background.
For example, the wizard strives to be a master of magical energies, shaping them and casting them as spells. To do so, he studies strange tongues and obscure facts and devotes much of his time to magical research etc....
From that description any number of game mechanics can be created. The mechancics themselves are not the purpose of the class, they are simply a means to abstractly represent the character in the game when needed.
That's why every archetype "class"-ification must outline all the advantages and disadvantages in and out of combat inorder to make that archetype come to life as a playable concept. The class definition should provide examples of the kind of character the class is supposed to represent. For example, the ranger class in the PHB might make mention of the fictional Robin Hood. When that image comes to mind people do not think of mechanics, the pattern of behavior and appearance of the character is what comes to mind. Now, some people might have completely different concepts on what a ranger is for their campaign, but that doesn't mean the default ranger D&D class should be reduced to mechanics and be completely void of any imagery devices.
I find it odd that some players don't like the idea of archetypal disadvantages (like the frail wizard). To them there is no such thing as an in game role playing hindrance for a class at all. These people are perfectly fine with classes that can't use a particular weapon or armor (for mechanical balance reasons ), but they are violently opposed to role playing rules of any kind, despite the fact that their games are mostly combat focused anyway.
It's true that many class hindrances are campaign specific. For example, a warlock in one campaign setting might be hunted down and burned on the stake for practicing witchcraft (a disadvantage), but in another that might not ever happen. Regardless, I think we really do need a default set of D&D archetypes for the core. Thankfully, D&D next has default concepts for races and classes, because without them the game wouldn't be role-playable. Default role playing features don't create problems for alternate campaign settings at all. In fact, the campaign setting is within its rights to modify the default classes/races and/or eliminate them completely.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 10:24AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
For example, the wizard strives to be a master of magical energies, shaping them and casting them as spells. To do so, he studies strange tongues and obscure facts and devotes much of his time to magical research etc....
Not necessarily, no. That's the default. That's the stereotype. It is not, in any way, a requirement, nor should it be.
If you want to play lame stereotypical characters, go to town. If you want your players to play lame stereotypical characters, you can force them to in your game. The system has no business dictating roleplay to anybody.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 10:24AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
These people are perfectly fine with classes that can't use a particular weapon or armor (for mechanical balance reasons )
Actually, that's a bunch of crap too.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 10:28AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
For example, the wizard strives to be a master of magical energies, shaping them and casting them as spells. To do so, he studies strange tongues and obscure facts and devotes much of his time to magical research etc....
Not necessarily, no. That's the default. That's the stereotype. It is not, in any way, a requirement, nor should it be.
If you want to play lame stereotypical characters, go to town. If you want your players to play lame stereotypical characters, you can force them to in your game. The system has no business dictating roleplay to anybody.
ok well, if you want to call King Aurthor a wizard then make your own campaign setting, but I doubt the designers are going to change that for you. D&D is full of so called stereotypical concepts.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 10:29AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
For example, the wizard strives to be a master of magical energies, shaping them and casting them as spells. To do so, he studies strange tongues and obscure facts and devotes much of his time to magical research etc....
Not necessarily, no. That's the default. That's the stereotype. It is not, in any way, a requirement, nor should it be.
If you want to play lame stereotypical characters, go to town. If you want your players to play lame stereotypical characters, you can force them to in your game. The system has no business dictating roleplay to anybody.
ok well, if you want to call King Aurthor a wizard then make your own campaign setting, but I doubt the designers are going to change that for you. D&D is full of so called stereotypical concepts.
----------------------------->The point.
 Your head.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 10:33AM
#18
|
|
|
For example, the wizard strives to be a master of magical energies, shaping them and casting them as spells. To do so, he studies strange tongues and obscure facts and devotes much of his time to magical research etc....
Not necessarily, no. That's the default. That's the stereotype. It is not, in any way, a requirement, nor should it be.
If you want to play lame stereotypical characters, go to town. If you want your players to play lame stereotypical characters, you can force them to in your game. The system has no business dictating roleplay to anybody.
Indeed. This is why I love Savage Worlds. The freeform character building allows for all manner of interesting RP without the stigma gained from traditional stereotypes.
For example, I recently played in a game set in the modern day where the PCs were "magical" detectives. Magic worked very much in the D&D sense in that learning and mastering spells was more like a science than sorcery. Even so we had one player who learned to blend magic and martial arts from reading magical ninjutsu scrolls, another who learned his magic from his native american grandfather and considered himself a shaman who could see and speak with the spirits of magic, another player who was a traditional bookworm magician, and lastly a Vietnam Vet who took a little too much acid and could now see patterns in the universe nobody else could which allowed him to cast spells.
One thing I want for D&D to allow is the freedom of expression and creativity that other RPGs do. D&D has traditionally had the problem of making the "fluff" too "crunchy" which has only ever restricted options. It was only in 4e where most of the fluff of a class was actually removed from the crunch that you could create the type of "concepts" traditionally only seen in non D&D rpgs.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 10:36AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
One thing I want for D&D to allow is the freedom of expression and creativity that other RPGs do. D&D has traditionally had the problem of making the "fluff" too "crunchy" which has only ever restricted options. It was only in 4e where most of the fluff of a class was actually removed from the crunch that you could create the type of "concepts" traditionally only seen in non D&D rpgs.
IMO, the day "fluff" (a terribly dismissive term) and "crunch" were used D&D went in the wrong direction.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 10:46AM
#20
|
|
|
One thing I want for D&D to allow is the freedom of expression and creativity that other RPGs do. D&D has traditionally had the problem of making the "fluff" too "crunchy" which has only ever restricted options. It was only in 4e where most of the fluff of a class was actually removed from the crunch that you could create the type of "concepts" traditionally only seen in non D&D rpgs.
IMO, the day "fluff" (a terribly dismissive term) and "crunch" were used D&D went in the wrong direction.
Wat? I love fluff. I think fluff is the best part about any RPG. I just generally don't like the fluff provided by the game and I do not think the game should dictate the fluff (except for specific campaign settings).
For example, if the base game had the fluff that all elves are actually humanoid plants and all dwarves are actually lesser earth elementals, many a grognard would scoff at the ridiculousness of such a game. But, in my homebrew fantasy world that is the way things are. Nothing changes mechanically, but the races have different fluff.
I want the games base fluff to be mutable so that anyone can create whatever concepts they want to. I don't want particular mechanics chosen for me based on fluff that only end up restricting creativity. This is why I oppose baked in RP mechanics because RP is mostly fluff, and the way you play class X could be 100% opposite of the way I play class X.
|
|
|
