Reject Modernity: Embrace Tradition

[Gangrelrumbler]

When it comes to fantasy RPGs with a class system I mostly agree, but I do think there should be a thief/rogue (a scouting/lockpicking/utility class, not the shitty "fighter but with light armor and faster" thing that pops up a lot). Mage and priest may also be fused into a single spellcasting class at game designer's discretion.

Rogues are the best choice for the third class because they compliment fighters and wizards the best. Combat/magic/stealth; melee, AoE, ranged attacks; gets a lot of HP, gets a lot of MP/spell uses, gets a lot of skill points; etc. They could get rebranded as experts and represent all characters that use their wit to get through encounters rather than strength and supernatural powers. Spies, acrobats, engineers, merchants and all that crap. I think that's what KoTOR did. I mean there's a reason (other than lack of creativity) that when devs boil-down classes to basics this is almost always what we get: Diablo 1, Dragon's Dogma, KoTOR, Dragon Age, Ultima in some way (where stats were boiled down to STR, IND and Dex representing core of each class), Lords Of Magic, Morrowind (the system is classless but you need to chose one of 3 specializations: combat, spells, stealth).

Rogues' biggest problem is that they are specialists at things that most often suck in video games. Range of bows is rarely utilized and their damage is abysmal compared to melee and spells. Stealth is often pointless or simply broken and unusable. You don't really need many skills since either most of them are useless or they're covered by various party members. I think fixing them would be making them into item using support class. You know medkits, grenades, bolas, nets and such. Sorta like Support from X-Com, Alchemists from FFT, Edgar from FF6.

 

[LudensCogitet]

This feels like a speech Todd Howard made before cutting skills in Oblivion. Codex is truly declining.

Seems to me the contention is that everything after the original 1974 release of D&D was decline. So you could argue it is the ultimate distillation of the Codex. Just waiting on someone to say it should all be thrown into the sea and we should go back to playing Chainmail.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

This feels like a speech Todd Howard made before cutting skills in Oblivion. Codex is truly declining.

Seems to me the contention is that everything after the original 1974 release of D&D was decline. So you could argue it is the ultimate distillation of the Codex. Just waiting on someone to say it should all be thrown into the sea and we should go back to playing Chainmail.

Chainmall?! You decline enabler, only Prussian war games are a real deal!

It's sad that some can't see improvements on the formula as improvements. I can't fathom seeing druids as just nature clerics. They act completely different from the story/atmosphere perspective and have additional utilities clerics don't have like talking with animals or predicting the weather.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

This feels like a speech Todd Howard made before cutting skills in Oblivion. Codex is truly declining.

a lot of those classes really are ridiculous though

off the top of my head, pathfinder has:
cleric
paladin
warpriest
inquisitor
crusader

and each one has multiple subclasses.
The point of classes is to represent an archetype.

 

[Jvegi]

Either Fighting-Man

Or woman.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

Either Fighting-Man

Or woman.

A "Fighting-Woman" breaks my immersion.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

This feels like a speech Todd Howard made before cutting skills in Oblivion. Codex is truly declining.

a lot of those classes really are ridiculous though

off the top of my head, pathfinder has:
cleric
paladin
warpriest
inquisitor
crusader

and each one has multiple subclasses.
The point of classes is to represent an archetype.

Each of mentioned classes do represent an archetype. I have a different image in my head when I imagine paladin and inquisitor. Even the paladin and crusader, which are the closet related among mentioned classes bring different imaginary. Crusader is a part of an organized, traveling army that has a single goal in mind like conquering a land or a city. Paladin acts more independently and fights evil in whatever form he finds along the way.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Each of mentioned classes do represent an archetype

No, they don't. Unless you want to explain how a warpriest differs from a cleric.

For reference, here is what Pathfinder says about a cleric:

In faith and the miracles of the divine, many find a greater purpose. Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods. Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith. Yet while they might share similar abilities, clerics prove as different from one another as the divinities they serve, with some offering healing and redemption, others judging law and truth, and still others spreading conflict and corruption. The ways of the cleric are varied, yet all who tread these paths walk with the mightiest of allies and bear the arms of the gods themselves.

That covers warpriests and inquisitors, they would obviously be a type of cleric.

Crusader is a part of an organized, traveling army that has a single goal in mind like conquering a land or a city. Paladin acts more independently and fights evil in whatever form he finds along the way.

And crusader would be a type of paladin, which is really just a type of fighter.

 

[Shadenuat]

This feels like a speech Todd Howard made before cutting skills in Oblivion. Codex is truly declining.

Seems to me the contention is that everything after the original 1974 release of D&D was decline. So you could argue it is the ultimate distillation of the Codex. Just waiting on someone to say it should all be thrown into the sea and we should go back to playing Chainmail.

Chainmall?! You decline enabler, only Prussian war games are a real deal!

It's sad that some can't see improvements on the formula as improvements. I can't fathom seeing druids as just nature clerics. They act completely different from the story/atmosphere perspective and have additional utilities clerics don't have like talking with animals or predicting the weather.

and clerics of goddess of love who cast bless for +1 attack you have no problems?

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

That covers warpriests and inquisitors, they would obviously be a type of cleric

The daily responsibilities of inquisitor differ so much from the cleric that it makes sense for them to be of different class.

And crusader would be a type of paladin, which is really just a type of fighter.

And fighter kills people, just like a mage, so mage is just a type of fighter who uses magic. Mage is just and archer who shoots colorful arrows.

and clerics of goddess of love who cast bless for +1 attack you have no problems?

Goddess of love is a pragmatic who knows that sometimes to protect the ones you love you need to kill. She also has an extensive BDSM knowledge which translate into a know-how about adding attack bonuses.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Mage is just and archer who shoots colorful arrows.

you've never actually played tabletop, huh?

 

[Shadenuat]

Goddess of love is a pragmatic who knows that sometimes to protect the ones you love you need to kill. She also has an extensive BDSM knowledge which translate into a know-how about adding attack bonuses.

please no play pretent bullshit. what you are saying would get you -xp from DM dude.
nothing +1 bless has with anything ever anywhere goddesses of love ever did.
goddesses of love irl was temple prostitution if anything, to the point of legendary figures existing of that class.
and god of making boats and fishing gives you +1 attak against fish, right?
you like druids because they are actual clerics in character how clerics should be. they make these healing berries, and fairy lights, and can only call lightning under open sky and all that shit. that's how all clerics actually should be if you want that similar effect. domain spells only end of rhine.

I will tell even more; one thing russians in particular had hard problem with in D&D is that any cleric can heal.

why do they all heal, they're pagans??

 

[Shadenuat]

This feels like a speech Todd Howard made before cutting skills in Oblivion. Codex is truly declining.

Seems to me the contention is that everything after the original 1974 release of D&D was decline. So you could argue it is the ultimate distillation of the Codex. Just waiting on someone to say it should all be thrown into the sea and we should go back to playing Chainmail.

the interesting thing about AD&D is that it somehow ended up the most socialite D&D.
before AD&D there was maps and miniatures
after it was maps and miniatures

when combat is fairly dangerous, it makes you want to try and resolve encounters in some other way but combat.
which is different to when you have, x rests, y short rests, and are supposed to go through 6 encounters total before facing danger or whatever.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

The daily responsibilities of inquisitor differ so much from the cleric that it makes sense for them to be of different class.

Your class shouldn't dictate your day job, it's not a profession. There is 0 reason why any other class couldn't be an inquisitor. In fact inquisition existed in real life even though the only classes available at that time were rogue and fighting-men. Wizard can roam the land and look for heretics using divination magic to find them more effectively. All martial/rogue classes can do the same, they just have to torture people in a traditional way. And of course there is nothing stopping any of the 2137 other clerics classes/subclases from just doing what they do. And Pathfinder's inquisitors aren't even that good at finding heretics, their specialty is team combat.

And fighter kills people, just like a mage, so mage is just a type of fighter who uses magic. Mage is just and archer who shoots colorful arrows.

Wizards have spells that do things other than killing people. They rely on different attributes and get more powerful in a different way.

Goddess of love is a pragmatic who knows that sometimes to protect the ones you love you need to kill. She also has an extensive BDSM knowledge which translate into a know-how about adding attack bonuses.

Yeah, all goddesses of love need to be pragmatic. And all gods of evil have to understand that sometimes you need to heal evil people so that they can do more evil in the future. Because every god is contractually obliged to offer the same selection of basic spells.

Crusader is a part of an organized, traveling army that has a single goal in mind like conquering a land or a city. Paladin acts more independently and fights evil in whatever form he finds along the way.

Yeah obviously that's not something every class in the game can just do. Let's ignore the fact that in WoTR there are no crusaders taking part in the crusade. On the other hand they have 3 Paladins (1 fallen) and a standard cleric.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I mean there's a reason (other than lack of creativity) that when devs boil-down classes to basics this is almost always what we get: Diablo 1, Dragon's Dogma, KoTOR, Dragon Age, Ultima in some way (where stats were boiled down to STR, IND and Dex representing core of each class), Lords Of Magic, Morrowind (the system is classless but you need to chose one of 3 specializations: combat, spells, stealth).

Dragon's Dogma differed from the usual schema in that it adopted the strider class as the third basic class alongside fighters and mages. Given the game's focus on action-based combat, the strider class featured ranged physical attacks (bow) but could also engage in melee combat (dagger), albeit not as effectively as a fighter (sword) and without a fighter's defensive power (shield), and had extra climbing ability. The "advanced" version of the strider was the ranger class with improved ranged attack but reduced melee attack.

For that matter, a quarter-century earlier Dungeon Master had a four class system with two spell-casting classes (wizard and priest), a fighter class, and a ninja class. Unlike a thief class, the ninja lacked stealth abilities or specialized trap/lock abilities but instead was proficient with throwing/shooting weapons, similar to the strider/ranger in Dragon's Dogma.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Imagine liking a faggy class like Bard but hating on an actually interesting class like Thief.

 

[Lhynn]

Both agree and disagree here.

Fighter, for example, is too wide a categorization, there are too many types of warriors, with too varied and often contradicting skill sets depending on geography, culture and history. I always like to see more fighter classes and they never feel redudant.

For wizards you dont need much, can easily build the identity around the spell selection and nothing else.

Thief could probably use more variety, a spy and an assassin are very different, and probably dont or shouldnt belong in the same class. And the tools of the trade change with the times, and whats available.

 

[Daemongar]

Can't remember where I read it, but I remember an account of an original D&D playing graybeard saying the thief class ruined the game, because _everyone_ was supposed to be doing the stuff thieves / rouges ended up doing: looking for traps, getting passed locked doors, looking for and collecting treasure, etc.

Adding the class, so the argument went, basically took all the adventuring and dungeon delving and made it a single character's job while leaving everyone else with some specific task to perform occasionally.

No greybeard would say anything that dumb - barely anyone played the 1974 edition with 3 classes and that was pretty quickly expanded upon. Sounds more like someone saying they were a big fan of the game before it went mainstream (ie: assholes.) The counter to their argument is that over time and versions, trapping every goddamn thing under the sun became the norm, not the exception. Your typical "Keep on the Borderlands" type adventure would have a trap here and there to keep players on their toes. This culminated with Tomb of Horrors and it's knockoffs.

Eventually thieves became indispensable to pnp games as every room you had to check the door, check the chest, check any locked items. Then check everything for traps. Then everyone searches for items. This was probably also designed around keeping thieves an essential part of the game as they were the only class that really dropped off as the party went up in levels.

 

[Zombra]

RPGs are too complicated! Too many options, too much to think about. More streamlined = better! "Traditionalism"

 

[Cryomancer]

Either Fighting-Man, Magic-User, or Cleric

How you would play as an Gnome Enchanter with just 3 classes?

And if I'm playing a Dark Sun game, I wanna have a half Giant gladiator and a psion in my party and no, fighting man/magic user can't replace it. Sure, you can make gladiator a figher subclass and psionic a caster variant. But I like people debating Enchanter VS Magician VS Wizard VS Necromancer or Warrior VS Berserker VS Hunter in Everquest.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

Either Fighting-Man, Magic-User, or Cleric

How you would play as an Gnome Enchanter with just 3 classes?

And if I'm playing a Dark Sun game, I wanna have a half Giant gladiator and a psion in my party and no, fighting man/magic user can't replace it.

I simply play as a Gnome magic man.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

RPGs are too complicated! Too many options, too much to think about. More streamlined = better! "Traditionalism"

When those "options" are mostly just Fighting Man or Magic User with a gimmick, then it's not really complicated. It's just bloat.

 

[Cryomancer]

I agree that many classes could be subclasses, or even FEATS for base classes, but 3 classes is streamlining too much. For eg :

A fighting man :

• Who wins X matches in the Athasian arena gains the title of "gladiator", and +Xto hit with weapons A/B/C
• Who prefers to kill in stealth gains the "rogue" title and now can use thieving tools
• Who uses an bow gains the ranger/sniper title and +X to hit with ranged weapons
• Uses swords gain the title of swordmaster and +X to hit with swords
• Has no formal training and grow up in a Barbarian tribe gains the title of Barbarian, with the rage ability and increased hit dice
• Dwarf defender? Be an dwarf and uses a lot of heavy armor and tower shield.

A magic user :

• Who study mostly school A gains the title of that school at lv X. Eg - Enchanter, Illusionist, Evoker, Necromancer
• Who focus in an element gains the title associated with the element. Eg - Cryomancer, Pyromancer, etc. The element associated gains +X DC or any other benefit
• Who makes an pact with an otherwordly being for magical tuition gains the title of Warlock. He doesn't learn spells from scrolls, but instead must contact his patron and perform tasks for him to learn new spells and scribe

Wanna be a paladin? Multiclass fighter/cleric. Wanna be a death knight? Multiclass Necromancer specialized magic user with fighting man.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

This feels like a speech Todd Howard made before cutting skills in Oblivion. Codex is truly declining.

Seems to me the contention is that everything after the original 1974 release of D&D was decline. So you could argue it is the ultimate distillation of the Codex. Just waiting on someone to say it should all be thrown into the sea and we should go back to playing Chainmail.

Chainmall?! You decline enabler, only Prussian war games are a real deal!

It's sad that some can't see improvements on the formula as improvements. I can't fathom seeing druids as just nature clerics. They act completely different from the story/atmosphere perspective and have additional utilities clerics don't have like talking with animals or predicting the weather.

What's difficult to imagine? They are sponsored casters. Their diety/patrons are just strongly nature themed. Its a domain & portfolio difference. For frame of reference, in D&D a druid of Talos (nature god) cannot turn undead and has a different spell list than a cleric of Talos. Likewise, a cleric of Malar (beast nature god) cannot shapeshift or use any nature themed abilities, but a druid can.

How does that make sense? Druids don't need to be a class. Spell list should be more precise to the diety portfolio, and features like shapeshifting or animal companions assigned via domains selected by the player to emphasize. Druids are a perfect example of bloat.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Can't remember where I read it, but I remember an account of an original D&D playing graybeard saying the thief class ruined the game, because _everyone_ was supposed to be doing the stuff thieves / rouges ended up doing: looking for traps, getting passed locked doors, looking for and collecting treasure, etc.

Adding the class, so the argument went, basically took all the adventuring and dungeon delving and made it a single character's job while leaving everyone else with some specific task to perform occasionally.

No greybeard would say anything that dumb - barely anyone played the 1974 edition with 3 classes and that was pretty quickly expanded upon. Sounds more like someone saying they were a big fan of the game before it went mainstream (ie: assholes.) The counter to their argument is that over time and versions, trapping every goddamn thing under the sun became the norm, not the exception. Your typical "Keep on the Borderlands" type adventure would have a trap here and there to keep players on their toes. This culminated with Tomb of Horrors and it's knockoffs.

Eventually thieves became indispensable to pnp games as every room you had to check the door, check the chest, check any locked items. Then check everything for traps. Then everyone searches for items. This was probably also designed around keeping thieves an essential part of the game as they were the only class that really dropped off as the party went up in levels.

A lot of what makes thieves/rogues interesting isn't often tackled in video games as is. They're one of the more mechanically interesting classes as well as with tons of flavor but sadly many CRPGs keeps them as fairly niche burst damage dealers that attack from stealth as their main focus.

It's why a Thief is ultimately more satisfying in a PNP setting since many CRPGs hardly take into account their tools and simply leave them as Fighters that trade in being able to take a few solid hits for big damage and having a reason for including knives in the weapon table.