Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tx7321" data-source="post: 3222270" data-attributes="member: 43146">HUSSAR: " see this is yet another, "D&D has moved away from its roots" sort of thread. The problem is, D&D in any incarnation, has always approached the genre in a kitchen sink way. Firearms have seen rules in Dragon, lazer guns and powered armor in modules, the classes are mish-mash of various sources, some very obscure. The idea that classes should conform to any sort of archetype is just silly. Why should they since none of the classes come saddled with role play notes? You can play a fighter in any sort of way you want as was rightfully pointed out by P&P. He can be a dex monkey with smaller weapons like a short sword or dagger or he can be the plate mail wearing tank. Take your pick. Both concepts work in 1e and neither fits with any sort of archetype."Well Hussar, all I can say is that AD&D 1E is a game designed with specific behavior in mind for each class.  This behavior is reinforced (almost defined) by the rules.  A fighter can indeed run around in a satin shirt with a foil like sword, but they'll be cut to pieces by the first enemy fighter in plate with long sword, they encounter.   If you want to act like such a hero, its possible, but you have to attain some levels first (after all, heroes in fiction are rare and are above the average).   It seems to me you'd like a game with no starting class types what so ever.  That might be interesting, just a list of skills and feats to choose from, and some rules to determine how many you can pick (perhaps points?) (and BTW thats pretty much the direction 3E moved toward).  Never mind that this makes no since (why, for instance, would a fighter be taught how to pick a lock like a thief) it would lead to mixes that were undefinable as to profession (and each would represent a mix of archeytpes).  Now this has a certain novelty about it thats refreshing...but in the long run, it lost MY interest as a game because of it.   So anyhow, clearly Hussar (from what you stated above), archetypes (or strictly defined classes created and reinforced by rules) are not of much use to you (in 3E).  And I suspect, most in the 3E camp would agree with you.  As several of you have stated, if you want to play a straight up fighter you can...or if you want to play a part fighter/MU/thief in any mix you ike, thats fine as well.   I don't have a beef with you, and respect those who have disagreed with me (mostly 3E players) opinions.  At least I better understand what you guys think, which was the point of the thread. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I think it could be argued that 3E might be a better game if they did away with the starting archetypes altogether, and went to just starting with skills and feats (the mix of 2 extremes has caused problems and confusion I think).   Everyone should be able to be what ever they want to be.  So what if it doesn't correspond with reality (a professional doctor/archetect/plummer) its a fantasy game, right?</blockquote>

Verification