Do We Really Need More Than the Core Four?

Shrieking Banshee · December 23, 2021, 12:08:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 11:54:50 PMThere are many aspects of old school D&D that aren't defined on a character sheet.

And not in the rulebooks, which is what make them great I know. Which is why wet napkin #12 on the floor in that bar in Indiana near the chili place on the 13th of June in 1997 was the best goddam system in the multiverse for all the things that are NOT on it.

All other systems can fail at trying to achieve the things that 0D&D has by not having them. 4es classes are terrible for not defining their roles outside of combat by defining them and 0D&D is great at defining roles outside of combat by not defining them.

Pat · December 23, 2021, 12:34:11 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 23, 2021, 12:08:36 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2021, 11:54:50 PMThere are many aspects of old school D&D that aren't defined on a character sheet.
And not in the rulebooks, which is what make them great I know. Which is why wet napkin #12 on the floor in that bar in Indiana near the chili place on the 13th of June in 1997 was the best goddam system in the multiverse for all the things that are NOT on it.

All other systems can fail at trying to achieve the things that 0D&D has by not having them. 4es classes are terrible for not defining their roles outside of combat by defining them and 0D&D is great at defining roles outside of combat by not defining them.

You're not interested in a conversation, that's just dismissive insults and attacks. For the record, I never said anything bad about 4e. I've never played it, or even read the books. And I've criticized old school D&D for several things.

Spinachcat · December 23, 2021, 03:48:37 AM

1) As a hobby, we have both the RuneQuest player who needs zero classes and the Palladium player who needs an unlimited number of new classes, regardless how redundant.

2) I like a variety of classes...but they aren't necessary to make a game interesting and fun...unless the point of RPGing for you is playing lots of different CLASSES (as opposed to lots of different personas).

3) Dropping the Thief class from my OSR games was the best choice I've made in decades to enhance my OD&D play. In fact, going all human with only Fighters, Mages and Clerics rocks so damn hard at the table in actual play.

Kyle Aaron · December 23, 2021, 06:03:29 AM

We do not.

When I've had open game tables, I limit players to the basic four. But given I have them do 3d6 down the line, the stats usually limit them anyway.

Eric Diaz · December 23, 2021, 01:00:32 PM

We do not need classes at all.

If we did, Fighter/Adventurer would be enough - see Searchers of the Unknown.

After that, add MU (or sorcerer) if you want to - see Carcosa.

Or you could have the Sword/Spell/Skill triad. (curiously, 5e has 12 classes - 6 warriors, 5 spell-casters, and the rogue - lots of classes get more attacks of spells, but the rogue is the only sneak attack).

The cleric is seems as superfluous, HOWEVER I do think there are some good arguments to keep it.

1) As a leader-type.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/06/replacing-cleric-for-leader.html

2) As a "strong defense, limited offense" counterpart to the thief.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/08/d-osr-and-anticlericarism.html

Spinachcat · December 23, 2021, 05:03:34 PM

Tunnels & Trolls from 1975 had 2 classes - Warrior & Wizard...and then added the Rogue Wizard who was a Warrior/Wizard hybrid.

Gameplay never suffered from a party of 3 Warriors and 3 Wizards.

Wrath of God · December 23, 2021, 09:08:35 PM

That's neat. Also names are way better than Fighting Man and Magic-User.

The Spaniard · December 24, 2021, 12:17:23 PM

Yes, you need the Ranger class. In fact, an all Ranger party works just fine.

SirFrog · December 24, 2021, 03:14:27 PM

The other thing I don't understand is why people get so bent out of shape if there are more than 2/3/4 classes. Having 20 classes in a B/X framework does not break the game

Pat · December 24, 2021, 03:59:46 PM

Quote from: SirFrog on December 24, 2021, 03:14:27 PM
The other thing I don't understand is why people get so bent out of shape if there are more than 2/3/4 classes. Having 20 classes in a B/X framework does not break the game

Who gets bent out of shape? Some people prefer it simple, some people prefer more options. But one of the best features of B/X is how easy it is to create a new class.

Spinachcat · December 24, 2021, 06:56:40 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on December 23, 2021, 09:08:35 PM
That's neat. Also names are way better than Fighting Man and Magic-User.

If you look at OD&D, you'll see that Fighting Man and Magic User were only for the overall class title, but at each level, your actual class name changed. That's something we really haven't seen emulated in the OSR.

AKA, you didn't encounter a Level X Fighting Man in the dungeon, but a Swashbuckler or a Myrmidon or a Lord.

It was kinda odd since a Necromancer would only be a Necromancer for that one level of Wizard.

Spinachcat · December 24, 2021, 06:58:46 PM

Quote from: SirFrog on December 24, 2021, 03:14:27 PMHaving 20 classes in a B/X framework does not break the game

True. We're really talking about how many flavors of chocolate do you need. The number of classes does affect world-building though.

But you are a truly terrible person for gatekeeping B/X to ONLY 20 classes and you should be cancelled immediately!

Chris24601 · December 25, 2021, 04:38:52 AM

Quote from: Spinachcat on December 24, 2021, 06:58:46 PM
Quote from: SirFrog on December 24, 2021, 03:14:27 PMHaving 20 classes in a B/X framework does not break the game

True. We're really talking about how many flavors of chocolate do you need. The number of classes does affect world-building though.

Which is why over the years I've grown more and more fond of what might be called two-axis class design. I most commonly see it expressed as class + background, but 4E's power source + role is an equally valid approach.

The gist is by combining two axis you multiply the potential results. So four classes + four backgrounds = 16 combos, but only 8 elements needed. Six of each and you're up to 36 combos, but only 12 elements needed.

Short version; it lets you have lots of "classes" with relatively few actual widgets.

cavalier973 · December 25, 2021, 06:40:49 AM

The core three classes at the beginning were magic-user, cleric, and fighter. I am reminded of the trio of ancient offices: prophet, priest, and king.
It could also be the Freudian id, ego, and superego. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

With adding the thief, you can match the "four personality types":

Fighter—Choleric
Cleric—Sanguine
Thief—Phlegmatic
Magic-User—Melancholy

Wait, what was the question, again?

Wrath of God · December 25, 2021, 07:09:44 AM

With 10 classes you can match 10 sephiras of Tree of Life.
With 22 classes you can match 22 cards of Major Arcana

With 46 classes you can match all Presidents of USA