This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

What Can You Remove from D&D and it Still Be D&D?

Started by Lynn, May 01, 2013, 02:03:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10
User actions

Bobloblah

#105
May 22, 2013, 02:01:08 PM Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 02:13:50 PM by Bobloblah
Quote from: TristramEvans;656667I think D&D would do fine with 3 classes:

Fighter
Mage
Specialist
What does "Specialist" encompass, as your three classes appear to leave out both Rogue-type and Priest-type characters?
Best,
Bobloblah

Asking questions about the fictional game space and receiving feedback that directly guides the flow of play IS the game. - Exploderwizard

daniel_ream

#106
May 22, 2013, 02:08:39 PM
Given Pundit's fondness for the system, I'm surprised no one has yet pointed out that this is basically True20 you're talking about here.
D&D is becoming Self-Referential.  It is no longer Setting Referential, where it takes references outside of itself. It is becoming like Ouroboros in its self-gleaning for tropes, no longer attached, let alone needing outside context.
~ Opaopajr

Bill

#107
May 22, 2013, 02:12:26 PM
Quote from: Elfdart;656490As I pointed out in another thread, you could easily lump all the fighter and thief-types into one generic Adventurer class that could be fine-tuned by the player into something very similar to the rulebook thief, fighter, assassin, ranger, monk, barbarian or paladin -only without creating whole new experience, saving throw or combat tables.

Sounds good to me as long as the options to tailor your character are plentiful.

Sacrosanct

#108
May 22, 2013, 05:40:00 PM
Quote from: Bobloblah;656670What does "Specialist" encompass, as your three classes appear to leave out both Rogue-type and Priest-type characters?

I can't speak for him of course, but I figured that clerics would fall under mages that just cast divine magic.  Or the tradtional AD&D armored spell caster would be handled by a few levels of fighter with a few of divine magic.
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you\'re stupid, your PC will die.  If you\'re an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you\'re unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC\'s die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

LibraryLass

#109
May 22, 2013, 10:38:03 PM
Quote from: Bobloblah;656670What does "Specialist" encompass, as your three classes appear to leave out both Rogue-type and Priest-type characters?

In my experience "Specialist" includes rogue-type.
http://rachelghoulgamestuff.blogspot.com/
Rachel Bonuses: Now with pretty

Quote from: noismsI get depressed, suicidal and aggressive when nerds start comparing penis sizes via the medium of how much they know about swords.

Quote from: Larsdangly;786974An encounter with a weird and potentially life threatening monster is not game wrecking. It is the game.

Currently panhandling for my transition/medical bills.

Bobloblah

#110
May 23, 2013, 09:37:12 AM
Quote from: LibraryLass;656830In my experience "Specialist" includes rogue-type.
That's why I'm asking, as I would've said the same as you. I'm interested in how his system would address what became four archetypes (instead of three) fairly early on.
Best,
Bobloblah

Asking questions about the fictional game space and receiving feedback that directly guides the flow of play IS the game. - Exploderwizard

jibbajibba

#111
May 23, 2013, 09:41:53 AM
Quote from: Bobloblah;656898That's why I'm asking, as I would've said the same as you. I'm interested in how his system would address what became four archetypes (instead of three) fairly early on.

The cleric isn't really an archetype though.
You can argue the wise priest is one but he can easily be a mage with divine rather than arcane magic.
The Hospitaler type is really a figther who might have some divine magic so provides you allow some bleed between the 3 classes both 'clerical' standards are very much covered.
No longer living in Singapore
Method Actor-92% :Tactician-75% :Storyteller-67%:
Specialist-67% :Power Gamer-42% :Butt-Kicker-33% :
Casual Gamer-8%

GAMERS Profile
Jibbajibba
9AA788 -- Age 45 -- Academia 1 term, civilian 4 terms -- $15,000

Cult&Hist-1 (Anthropology); Computing-1; Admin-1; Research-1;
Diplomacy-1; Speech-2; Writing-1; Deceit-1;
Brawl-1 (martial Arts); Wrestling-1; Edged-1;

Bobloblah

#112
May 23, 2013, 09:59:00 AM
Quote from: jibbajibba;656900The cleric isn't really an archetype though.
You can argue the wise priest is one but he can easily be a mage with divine rather than arcane magic.
The Hospitaler type is really a figther who might have some divine magic so provides you allow some bleed between the 3 classes both 'clerical' standards are very much covered.
I'm well aware of your feelings on lack of representation in fiction or history; I really have no opinion on that. Nevertheless, I do feel that it has long since become an archetype within D&D.
Best,
Bobloblah

Asking questions about the fictional game space and receiving feedback that directly guides the flow of play IS the game. - Exploderwizard

TristramEvans

#113
May 23, 2013, 04:57:03 PM
Quote from: Bobloblah;656670What does "Specialist" encompass, as your three classes appear to leave out both Rogue-type and Priest-type characters?

Rogues would be covered by "specialist"; i.e. any character with specialized skills for a specific environment/situation (rogue, ranger, etc). A priest character could be a fighter-mage or mage-specialist dual class or just a mage, depending on how a person envisions them. The point is to get class back to actually meaning a class and not conflated with "occupation".

Bobloblah

#114
May 23, 2013, 08:44:02 PM
Quote from: TristramEvans;657028Rogues would be covered by "specialist"; i.e. any character with specialized skills for a specific environment/situation (rogue, ranger, etc). A priest character could be a fighter-mage or mage-specialist dual class or just a mage, depending on how a person envisions them. The point is to get class back to actually meaning a class and not conflated with "occupation".
So, a priest-type character would be a mage who chooses divine spells only? What kind of access would they have to clerical or other priestly special abilities (e.g. turning)?
Best,
Bobloblah

Asking questions about the fictional game space and receiving feedback that directly guides the flow of play IS the game. - Exploderwizard

jibbajibba

#115
May 23, 2013, 09:15:35 PM
Quote from: Bobloblah;657060So, a priest-type character would be a mage who chooses divine spells only? What kind of access would they have to clerical or other priestly special abilities (e.g. turning)?

Now this is interesting as you have a lot of class abilites in D&D that are in this category
Druid - animal form
Cleric - turn undead
Barbarian - raise a horde
etc

At its best these become iconic parts of the game, at their worst they become mechanical bloat that are used merely to distinguish one class from another.

The Obvious way is to follow the D&D Next route. Make a list of all of these call them feats and then let a PC select one every 2 levels. Some are class specific some are race specific some are tied to certain other elements.
So for example only someone that weilds Divine magic can select the Turn Undead feat.
Now you can give that to your priest , your paladin, your vampire hunter, your inquisitor, your ...
No longer living in Singapore
Method Actor-92% :Tactician-75% :Storyteller-67%:
Specialist-67% :Power Gamer-42% :Butt-Kicker-33% :
Casual Gamer-8%

GAMERS Profile
Jibbajibba
9AA788 -- Age 45 -- Academia 1 term, civilian 4 terms -- $15,000

Cult&Hist-1 (Anthropology); Computing-1; Admin-1; Research-1;
Diplomacy-1; Speech-2; Writing-1; Deceit-1;
Brawl-1 (martial Arts); Wrestling-1; Edged-1;

Bobloblah

#116
May 24, 2013, 08:07:13 AM Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 08:10:10 AM by Bobloblah
Quote from: jibbajibba;657071The Obvious way is to follow the D&D Next route. Make a list of all of these call them feats and then let a PC select one every 2 levels. Some are class specific some are race specific some are tied to certain other elements.
This is the direction that ACKS heads in, though not quite to the extent you're looking for (Turn Undead is still the domain of the Cleric, for example) as many of what could be called "second tier" abilities are handled as Proficiencies that characters can select. Some are limited in which class can choose then, and some are generally selectable by any class. It's an approach I'm finding works very well in practice. Not sure how it would do with the major class abilities, however, ACKS also includes a class-building set of tools which were used to build all the classes in the Player's Companion. I haven't played with them a lot, but judging by the results others have produced with them, they're very robust.
Best,
Bobloblah

Asking questions about the fictional game space and receiving feedback that directly guides the flow of play IS the game. - Exploderwizard

Phillip

#117
May 24, 2013, 10:17:15 AM
Why separate Specialist? Why not just two types as in The Fantasy Trip:

* "Hero" more easily picks up skills (including fighting skills).
* "Wizard" more easily picks up spells.

You can allow for the character who knows everything about basket weaving but needs "this end toward enemy" engraved on his sword without needing to devote a whole category to that!
And we are here as on a darkling plain  ~ Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, ~ Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Sacrosanct

#118
May 24, 2013, 11:27:49 AM Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 11:55:49 AM by Sacrosanct
Quote from: Phillip;657220Why separate Specialist? Why not just two types as in The Fantasy Trip:

* "Hero" more easily picks up skills (including fighting skills).
* "Wizard" more easily picks up spells.

You can allow for the character who knows everything about basket weaving but needs "this end toward enemy" engraved on his sword without needing to devote a whole category to that!

Why even have two?  Why not just one and you pick your skills.

clearly in order for a game to remain D&D, you can get rid of classes and make it a skill based system instead

;)
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you\'re stupid, your PC will die.  If you\'re an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you\'re unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC\'s die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

Phillip

#119
May 24, 2013, 11:51:06 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;657226Why even have two?  Why not just one and you pick your skills.

clearly in order for a came to remain D&D, you can get rid of classes and make it a skill based system instead

;)
But it's nEXt D&D.
And we are here as on a darkling plain  ~ Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, ~ Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10
User actions