Quote from: Spike;518824Nothing is particularly radical about it per se.  In general, I find most eye opening ideas are simply something obvious that wasn't pointed out before to the person getting their eyes opened.

But, as you'll note, we actually take it a step further than the four class breakdown you pointed out was core.  Clerics are either fancy fighters who cast spells or honkin' powerful ass spell casters who get armor and hit points.

The slight difference in spell lists is a trival difference.

I agree with you on this one Spike.

The three class model needs work not to be bland that is why I want to use the archetype/sub-class so the DM takes/builds a setting which has 20 or 30 subclasses all with flavour but that all feed up to the 3 Class splits so there isn't a vast slew of mechanical variation instead there is a lot of colour.

I am trying to achieve this with different types of magic a caster selects from Hermanetic (magic as science with vancian style spells) , Demonologists (who bind demons to achieve effects), Sorcerers (who learn the true names of things and can effect them thus) and Divine (miracle workers that call on the gods).
Then there are a range of different spell lists, Wilderness, City, Stealth, etc
A range of comabtr options etc ...
You get 10 poitns per level to buy these skills , powers, defence, attack, Hit dice etc.


Now a post on another thread talked about Hackmaster doing something similar but I have no experience of that system.

In any case the tricky bit is creating the sub-classes that feel they have character and a uniqueness but without a slew of mechanical variants.

HackMaster has:

Fighter
Knight(must play as a Fighter until 5th level then can switch to a Knight)
Paladin(must play as a Knight until 10th level then can switch to a Paladin)
Ranger(closer to the 1st Ed AD&D Outdoor Hunter/fighter of evil humanoids but no spells)
Barbarian
Mage
Thief
Rogue(Social Skills specialist/Con Man)
Assassin
Clerics (14 different types of specialists clerics)

Quote from: greylond;518876HackMaster has:

Fighter
Knight(must play as a Fighter until 5th level then can switch to a Knight)
Paladin(must play as a Knight until 10th level then can switch to a Paladin)
Ranger(closer to the 1st Ed AD&D Outdoor Hunter/fighter of evil humanoids but no spells)
Barbarian
Mage
Thief
Rogue(Social Skills specialist/Con Man)
Assassin
Clerics (14 different types of specialists clerics)

Hey greylond since you are the go to Hackmaster guy and on aother thread you mentioned that in HM when you level you get points to spend on a bunch of options can you confirm that and is there a good link to examples?

Yes, I can confirm it.

If it helps I'll start a new thread. I've got an example character I recently made up. I'll post that and then an example of his going up a level.

Quote from: greylond;518884Yes, I can confirm it.

If it helps I'll start a new thread. I've got an example character I recently made up. I'll post that and then an example of his going up a level.

thanks mate

Funny enough a D20 inspired game I tinker with from time to time everyone starts as: Fighter, Mage, Rogue, or Cleric. Call that basic training. You're just a trainee in that class until level 3 or so then you become the next "full" class.

Of course you can specialize in Fighter and be a Warrior, or Cleric and be a Priest.

On the other hand you pick up some Fighter/Rogue/Cleric and you can be a Ranger (with spells) or drop the cleric and have two Fighter levels and be a Hunter.  Follow the Cleric but stay Neutral? Be a Druid. Follow a Fighter/Fighter/Cleric path and be a Paladin, or stick to Mage for a dozen levels and be an Archmage.

I'd have another way of grouping them, though this doesn't perhaps fit with most people's expectations.

Physical
 Fighter
  Barbarian
  Cavalier
  Ranger
 Thief
   Assasin
Monk      

Mental
 Cleric
  Priest
 Mage
  Illusionist
 Druid
 
Social
 Bard
 Rogue
 Warlord

Obviously with some overlap in two or all three areas.

Trying to go to far into loaded terminology, I think the point is that you can place them into iconic tactical roles.

The Fighting Man, Paladin and Barbarian are all 'Tanks' or defensive fighters, what really defines them is they can go toe to toe with the big guy.

The Magic-User, Sorcerer and Warlock are all 'Artillery', what you expect them to do in a fight is stand at the back and ring on the big magical attacks that either deal lots of damage to one thing or some damage to everything.

The Cleric, Druid and Warlord are all 'Healers', you want them keeping the rest of your group standing.

The Assassin, Ranger and Thief are all 'Flankers' or offensive fighters, they cant take damage so they must rely on positioning or surprise in combat.

Which leaves the last three as either having no fixed combat role, or having a very specialist one.

Of course, that is just the archetypal role, you can easily break out of your role with the right kit/build/whatever.


A more important question, was the Cavalier ever a core class?

Quote from: jadrax;519129Trying to go to far into loaded terminology, I think the point is that you can place them into iconic tactical roles.

The Fighting Man, Paladin and Barbarian are all 'Tanks' or defensive fighters, what really defines them is they can go toe to toe with the big guy.

The Magic-User, Sorcerer and Warlock are all 'Artillery', what you expect them to do in a fight is stand at the back and ring on the big magical attacks that either deal lots of damage to one thing or some damage to everything.

The Cleric, Druid and Warlord are all 'Healers', you want them keeping the rest of your group standing.

The Assassin, Ranger and Thief are all 'Flankers' or offensive fighters, they cant take damage so they must rely on positioning or surprise in combat.

Which leaves the last three as either having no fixed combat role, or having a very specialist one.

Of course, that is just the archetypal role, you can easily break out of your role with the right kit/build/whatever.


A more important question, was the Cavalier ever a core class?

The roles based classification assumes that everything is about combat though.

It also assumes that the basic assumptions of combat are identical to the ones in 3rd / 4th edition D&D. Which is untrue for... well, anything other than 3rd / 4th edition D&D.*

No other version of D&D distinguishes between defensive "Tanks" and offensive "Strikers", since no other version shamelessly copies the assumptions of MMORPGs. No other version of D&D limits spellcasters to either "Artillery" or "Healer", since no other version was written by designers who were so limited in their understanding of the game that they couldn't possibly imagine anything else to do with spells.

*As a note, it logically follows from this that these tactical roles are anything but "iconic". Show me an archetypal "defensive fighter" or "offensive fighter" figure from fiction or legend. You can't, there's only "fighter". That is iconic.

Quote from: Premier;519164Show me an archetypal "defensive fighter" or "offensive fighter" figure from fiction or legend. You can't, there's only "fighter". That is iconic.

Ajax and Odysseus.

And I think you are confusing focus with limitations, just because your the artillery focus dosen't mean you can't have a whole heap of tricks besides. But when D&D climbed out of its war game roots all these roles where clearly defined. Only the terminology has changed.

At its core, big honking AC guy and lightly armoured archer guy are different.

QuoteAjax and Odysseus.

Where exactly does it say in the Illiad that Ajax is really good at protecting himself but only so-so on the attack, or that Odysseus has strong blows but is sort of fragile? Please give us the citation.

Quote from: jadrax;519171And I think you are confusing focus with limitations, just because your the artillery focus dosen't mean you can't have a whole heap of tricks besides.

And I think you're confusing "element" with "focus". Chucking fireballs and the like is an element of what a wizard is (pre-WotC, anyway). One of many elements, each carrying the same weight; and a wizard concentrating on non-damage dealing combat spells or even non-combat spells is just as viable as one concentrating on damage output. It is NOT a "focus" in that it's not the main thing next to which everything else is auxiliary tricks and window dressing.

QuoteBut when D&D climbed out of its war game roots all these roles where clearly defined. Only the terminology has changed.

At its core, big honking AC guy and lightly armoured archer guy are different.

Not true, sorry. In a miniatures wargame, yes. For NPCs who always have whatever equipment the DM wants them to have, yes. But as far as D&D PCs are concerned, big honking AC guy also has a bow, and archer guy also has good armour, because they've either bought it in a shop or looted it from enemies. The rules of D&D (again, pre-WotC) are specifically set up to reward that sort of multi-functionality and to punish this sort of specialisation. Sure, you CAN refuse to buy ranged weapons for your guy, but you'll be crippling yourself by not having ranged capability while receiving no compensation whatsoever. You also CAN refuse to buy armour for your archer, but, again, you'll be crippling yourself, because you'll be that much easier to hit while receiving no reward for being unarmoured (excepting some highly situational benefits like swimming or running away faster, but these will be almost always outweighted by the odium of having an AC of 9-10.)

This is the original concept of the Fighting Man: a character who's good at hitting things AND has a good armour class (which means heavy armour), AND has high HP, AND can fight at range or in close combat equally well. This was the concept of the Fighter until WotC. The notion that your fighting character must choose between either having a high damage output OR being able to take hits was introduced by 3rd ed.. It is NOT inherent in D&D.

Quote from: Premier;519174Where exactly does it say in the Illiad that Ajax is really good at protecting himself but only so-so on the attack, or that Odysseus has strong blows but is sort of fragile? Please give us the citation

That's not the same thing, your getting tied up in game mechanics. Ajax was the archetypal front line fighter, big strong and massive. Odysseus was slight, cunning and relied on trickery and intelligence. There's nothing to stop a defensive fighter doing huge damage, indeed Achilles (who was invulnerable) was also a death machine. But its still Odysseus through tactics and trickery who wins the day. (Which is kind of the moral, and gets explored even more in the Odyssey). Ajax charged his foes and cut through hordes of lesser men, if Odysseus had tried that he would have been going home on his shield.

It's a pretty common fictional trope, I could have said B.A. Barraccus and Hannibal Smith instead.

If the word 'focus' upsets you as terminology, I can happy accept element instead. As jibbajibba pointed out, where already dissecting the wings off the butterfly here, as there's a huge chunk of the game that's not about fighting that's excluded here.

In your final example, that true if Archer Guy is a Fighting Man. But as soon as you have the Thief with his abilities of stealth, climbing and other ways of getting advantage on the combat, you have a far superior light armour fighter. Which as an aside leads to one of the problems with the fighting Man, in that his versatility goes down each time a new 'type' of warrior comes along and nicks part of his portfolio. That I am afraid, pre-dates WotC by years. Hell, most of this stuff I was having the exact same discussions back when I was in secondary school (only you know, without the internet).

Quote from: jadrax;519176If the word 'focus' upsets you as terminology, I can happy accept element instead. As jibbajibba pointed out, where already dissecting the wings off the butterfly here, as there's a huge chunk of the game that's not about fighting that's excluded here.

It's not a question of what word we use. The point of contention is that in your post, you've presented the assumption that Artillery Blasting is the primary thing that defines a wizard, and everything else he might do is just secondary. I do not accept that, and maintain my point that the wizard's Artillery Blasting aspect is in no way more important, integral or core to the concept as any aspects of the character. (Again, excepting WotCD&D, where the other aspects have been all but eliminated as a matter of conscious design choice.)

And I'm not excluding the huge chunk of game that's not about fighting, because doing so would be going off topic. This thread isn't about "How you categorise classes in combat", it's about "How you categorise classes, full stop."

QuoteIn your final example, that true if Archer Guy is a Fighting Man. But as soon as you have the Thief with his abilities of stealth, climbing and other ways of getting advantage on the combat, you have a far superior light armour fighter.

...in WotC D&D. Not anywhere else. Anywhere else, the Thief's tactical role in combat is somewhere between "highly peripheral, maybe throwing darts at the enemy wizard to disrupt casting" and, on a more fundamental level, "None. He's NOT A COMBAT CLASS."

Because that's what the case is. Before WotC, the Thief does not have an edge or specialisation in combat. He is, in all possible respects, inferior to the Fighter and arguably the Cleric. He had plenty of good stuff to do outside combat, and the price for that was relative uselessness IN combat. It was only 3rd. ed. which invented the notion that every class must contribute to a fight equally, turning the Thief from a sneaky, thiefy, trap-disably scouting noncombatant into some sort of lightly armed but heavy-hitting warrior reaver. So just to recap the argument I've been making all along: your classification of classes by combat roles is NOT valid for D&D in general, only specifically for the new editions.

QuoteWhich as an aside leads to one of the problems with the fighting Man, in that his versatility goes down each time a new 'type' of warrior comes along and nicks part of his portfolio. That I am afraid, pre-dates WotC by years. Hell, most of this stuff I was having the exact same discussions back when I was in secondary school (only you know, without the internet).

Well, one might argue that the breaking up of the niche started before WotC, but it was WotC who really took the ball and ran with it. But that's not a problem with the Fighting Man, it's a problem with the game design involved as a whole.

Quote from: Premier;519179It's not a question of what word we use. The point of contention is that in your post, you've presented the assumption that Artillery Blasting is the primary thing that defines a wizard, and everything else he might do is just secondary. I do not accept that, and maintain my point that the wizard's Artillery Blasting aspect is in no way more important, integral or core to the concept as any aspects of the character. (Again, excepting WotCD&D, where the other aspects have been all but eliminated as a matter of conscious design choice.)

I struggle to think of a role of a wizard that matches up to its role as artillery. It's what makes the class unique. Look at the shear number of Damage spells compared to everything else. They can do other things, and indeed you could build one that did not do Artillery at all, but you would be making a concious decision to play against the norm. And again, i think your language is unnecessary judgemental, saying things are 'Just Secondary' as if every secondary was unimportant. Just because yon categorise things in an order dosen't mean everything apart from what is at the top of the list becomes worthless.

QuoteAnd I'm not excluding the huge chunk of game that's not about fighting, because doing so would be going off topic. This thread isn't about "How you categorise classes in combat", it's about "How you categorise classes, full stop."

Certainly I think is 5th that's probably the way it will go, If skills are removed and placed on stats, I can't see what out of combat roles are going to be based on Class. I get the impression if you want to play the social guy, you will take high Cha and then pick whatever class you want. So if you want to play a Noble type, you could be a noble Fighter, Wizard or even Thief without any real penalty.

Quote...in WotC D&D. Not anywhere else. Anywhere else, the Thief's tactical role in combat is somewhere between "highly peripheral, maybe throwing darts at the enemy wizard to disrupt casting" and, on a more fundamental level, "None. He's NOT A COMBAT CLASS."

Because that's what the case is. Before WotC, the Thief does not have an edge or specialisation in combat. He is, in all possible respects, inferior to the Fighter and arguably the Cleric. He had plenty of good stuff to do outside combat, and the price for that was relative uselessness IN combat. It was only 3rd. ed. which invented the notion that every class must contribute to a fight equally, turning the Thief from a sneaky, thiefy, trap-disably scouting noncombatant into some sort of lightly armed but heavy-hitting warrior reaver.

All i can really say to that is that's not my experience in playing the game. There was plenty a good Thief player could do in combat, which a fighter or cleric couldn't do because of their lack of skills/armour. Indeed one GM renamed the class Scouts and removed all the thief trappings because it was essentially a military campaign, and out of the 7 players we had 2 pure thieves and one multi-class. Stealth, Mobility and indeed Backstab are all viable combat abilities that other classes lacked or where not as good at.