Class concepts that you just can't work out neatly in DnD

[Cedric]

D&D is not a generic fantasy game. It never has been and never will be. That people don't understand this after thirty-odd years astounds me. D&D is a lot of things, and it has some range to it, but when it comes down to it, it is a fantasy adventure game. Complaining that it doesn't have good rules for courtly intrigue or seafaring mercantilism is just absurd. It is like complaining that Vampire doesn't have rules for playing leprechauns.

I've never hesitated to expand my use of D&D beyond "generic" fantasy. I'm sorry if you think I'm doing it wrong, but I've certainly had a lot of fun over the years, so have my players.

 

[Reynard]

Won't do. They made Craft Alchemy require the ability to cast spells.

Huh. I guess gnomes cam still do it, though.

 

[Aus_Snow]

But I bet there still isn't a "rumomonger" class anywhere in any of them.

I dunno. I'd be surprised, with the number of classes out there, if there wasn't.

 

[Crothian]

I am almost surprised that the very first response was a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Almost.

Let me try this again. :clears throat: Fantasy adventure game. If said adventure happens in a court, or on a merchant vessel, yay for you. But it is still a fantasy adventure, what with the daring do and the danger and the swings swords and spells going off left and right. Thus -- as should have been obvious from my previous post, and probably was but more fun to ignore anyway -- PC archetypes and concepts need to have some way to engage in said adventure.

AH!! So, character that are good at courtly intruge like a Bard for example can't also do adventure? We can't have noble prince who is unfit and untrained for combat say to hell with it and go try to rescue his love anyway? And if it was obvious I wouldn't have ignored it. I misrepresented nothing, you just didn't type clearly enough.

I think now on reading this you meant to say that games limited to only courtly intrigue are not really D&D. Which again is limitingthe game unfairly. It does suprise people, I know, but the game has changed a little in the past 31 years.

 

[Reynard]

I've never hesitated to expand my use of D&D beyond "generic" fantasy. I'm sorry if you think I'm doing it wrong, but I've certainly had a lot of fun over the years, so have my players.

I suppose I should have put up a discalimer. Well, I'll do it now:

This is not an attack against your playstyle. It is not me saying you have been doing it wrong. It is not an admonition for your use of the D&D rules to simulate medieval cook-offs in southern Latveria. It is not a suggestion that you shouldn't be proud of yourself in a round hole/square peg kind of way. It is simply a statement. Please return to your neolithic whale bone trading campaign.

 

[Cedric]

This is not an attack against your playstyle.

No...all of this is...

It is not me saying you have been doing it wrong. It is not an admonition for your use of the D&D rules to simulate medieval cook-offs in southern Latveria. It is not a suggestion that you shouldn't be proud of yourself in a round hole/square peg kind of way. It is simply a statement. Please return to your neolithic whale bone trading campaign.

I'll make my point and drop it. With the introduction of a robust skill system, including a large number of social skills and many social class abilities....D&D very much worked to expand it's scope beyond "when do I get to kill something again" and on to the heady fun of intrigue, spying, courts, merchant bazaars, etc., etc., etc.

There are plenty of people out there who white wash those encounters and roll on to the next fight. However...there are many of us who don't.

 

[Reynard]

I think now on reading this you meant to say that games limited to only courtly intrigue are not really D&D. Which again is limitingthe game unfairly. It does suprise people, I know, but the game has changed a little in the past 31 years.

You're close. What I am saying is that D&D doesn't do games that are limited to courtly intrigue well because it is an adventure game. The game is limited. In order to do certain things with it, you have to change it. Which is fine and all. But don't ask for support for non-combat, non-magical, non-adventuring character archtypes and concepts ikn thre Core Rules.

But feel free to explain why neither combat, magic nor adventure are important to D&D. I know you want to.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I already have a 10d6 fireball in my pants, thank you very much.

I, too, have come up with PC concepts that cannot be designed in 3.xEd. I'm not even talking about truly esoteric stuff that I can only do in HERO, but stuff I have done in past editions of D&D. My 2Ed Minotaur Ftr/Mage and my Finnish legend based warrior/cleric simply cannot be translated into the current game.

Heck, I'm running a Spellsword right now who is based on Indiana Jones...very clunky in the current rule-set.

Getting rid of classes to make it "pick whatever you want" would make it not D&D anymore.

There are still ways to make the game more flexible than it is without ditching the class system.

If you make all options available to all classes, but give certain classes a "discount" on acquiring certain options, you'll keep the class system, but increase flexibility. See 2Ed's Players Option ruleset.

In 3.X (or 4Ed, if you will), that would mean you'd have multiple ways of achieving a magic-using warrior. The warrior would be able to pick up fighting-related abilities "cheap," but would find picking up spellcasting "expensive," while a spellcaster could pick up magic-related abilities "cheap" while combat skills would be "expensive." Both might find rogue type skills to be "moderately priced."

This doesn't have to be a point based system.

If, for example, everything were to be reduced to Feats, Warriors would pick up warrior feats at a cost of 1 Feat slot per Feat, but might have to allocate 3 feat slots to pick up moderate arcane spellcasting ability (say, like a bard's) or 6 feat slots to gain full arcane spellcasting ability (like a sorcerer or wizard).

This change would neccessitate only that PCs get more feats to spend.

 

[Reynard]

I'll make my point and drop it. With the introduction of a robust skill system, including a large number of social skills and many social class abilities....D&D very much worked to expand it's scope beyond "when do I get to kill something again" and on to the heady fun of intrigue, spying, courts, merchant bazaars, etc., etc., etc.

There are plenty of people out there who white wash those encounters and roll on to the next fight. However...there are many of us who don't.

Simple thing here, that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle: I didn't say intrigue or trade weren't appropriate things to happen. I said it is an adventure game and characters without the capability to engage in adventure were inappropriate and should be supported by the core rules.

I am not sure how it mutated into me saying "D&D only supports linear fight-loot-repeat dungeon crawls" but I'd liike that to go away.

 

[Cedric]

Simple thing here, that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle: I didn't say intrigue or trade weren't appropriate things to happen. I said it is an adventure game and characters without the capability to engage in adventure were inappropriate and should be supported by the core rules.

I am not sure how it mutated into me saying "D&D only supports linear fight-loot-repeat dungeon crawls" but I'd liike that to go away.

Fair enough.

For what it's worth, I do think characters that are without a means to engage in combat are going to find themselves left out of certain parts of the game. However, those characters who have no social ability may find themselves left out of other parts of the game.

In a general sense though, being left out of combat activity will be more significant in most games.