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

TristramEvans · May 29, 2013, 04:55:28 PM

Quote from: LibraryLass;658019You're mistaken, I'm afraid. It was Fighter and Magic User during Blackmoor and Castle Greyhawk, then Cleric, the three of which were in OD&D, then the Thief came along in supplement 1.

Ah. My mistake then.

Still not a fan of the cleric as a class. Seems like fighter-magic user pretty much covers what a cleric does.

Bobloblah · May 29, 2013, 10:44:01 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;657635Well, take a look at Rob Conley's Majestic Wilderlands. He redoes every single class, in ways that are both familiar and very different at the same time, and its awesome, and utterly old-school, and very much D&D.
I think what still has to be there is a general set of "class types": the fighter class(es), the wizard(s), the rogue(s), the clerics (though the latter might even be conjoined with wizards into a general "magic-casters" category).

RPGPundit

Yeah, I own it, and that's a good point.

Back on the original topic, I think some kind of cleric or priest class is required for it to feel like D&D to me. That's probably for no better reason than it has always been there as a class. I particularly liked the Complete Priest book's implementation of the concept in AD&D 2nd.

RPGPundit · May 30, 2013, 08:24:27 PM

I can't look at your user name now without waiting for a "Bob Loblaw Low Law Blow".

RPGPundit

Bobloblah · May 30, 2013, 09:53:06 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;659016I can't look at your user name now without waiting for a "Bob Loblaw Low Law Blow".

RPGPundit

-heh-
I'm glad it amuses you!
Try and think of it as "blah-blah-blah" and maybe that'll help.

TristramEvans · May 31, 2013, 07:53:28 PM

Quote from: Bobloblah;659040-heh-
I'm glad it amuses you!
Try and think of it as "blah-blah-blah" and maybe that'll help.

That was a good show.

RPGPundit · June 02, 2013, 05:13:00 AM

Quote from: TristramEvans;659182That was a good show.

It still is. The new season is awesome.

Elfdart · June 02, 2013, 11:07:03 PM

Quote from: TristramEvans;658689Ah. My mistake then.

Still not a fan of the cleric as a class. Seems like fighter-magic user pretty much covers what a cleric does.

If you're willing to pour all the cleric and druid spells into the same bucket with mage/illusionist spells, maybe. I could also see the ability to turn undead, demons, etc being based on (a) if the character has the necessary equipment (holy symbol, holy water, garlic, rowan, communion wafers, iron, et al) and (b) the level, wisdom and charisma of the PC in question. This certainly fits in better with vampire-fighters depicted in movies and novels.

The only bad part is that the character who gains spells and other abilities from being a servant of his god(s) is deleted in this scenario, and that wouldn't fly in most campaigns.

Bobloblah · June 03, 2013, 12:40:04 PM

Quote from: Elfdart;659567The only bad part is that the character who gains spells and other abilities from being a servant of his god(s) is deleted in this scenario, and that wouldn't fly in most campaigns.

That's the trouble I have with it. I like dedicated priests who have a selection of spells (and armor, and weapons, and taboos, and rituals) relevant to their worshipped God. Lumping them in with arcane spellcasters seems to make that distinction difficult.

TristramEvans · June 03, 2013, 02:55:51 PM

Quote from: Bobloblah;659693That's the trouble I have with it. I like dedicated priests who have a selection of spells (and armor, and weapons, and taboos, and rituals) relevant to their worshipped God. Lumping them in with arcane spellcasters seems to make that distinction difficult.

I would tend to leave the distinction up to the player. I.e. , a spellcaster can be a wizard, druid, cleric, chaman, or whatever else as defined by the player by their choice in spells. Ive never found it necessary for the system itself to enforce such roles or identities on players.

Bobloblah · June 03, 2013, 03:25:38 PM

Quote from: TristramEvans;659723I would tend to leave the distinction up to the player. I.e. , a spellcaster can be a wizard, druid, cleric, chaman, or whatever else as defined by the player by their choice in spells. Ive never found it necessary for the system itself to enforce such roles or identities on players.

Ah. I can understand that. For my games, I've always tried to make the distinction that divine spellcasting is actually prayers for intercession from one's deity. As such, it's bound by whatever strictures one's faith entails. While that part's not directly mechanically enforced, violating the precepts of one's faith is going to mean no more spells until one atones.

It's a different take than 0e and its Clerics, to be sure, but one I really prefer. Mixing spellcasting between types of spellcasters (i.e. arcane and divine) would seem to make the internal consistency of my approach harder to maintain. Maybe I'm just not being imaginitive enough.