Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5786726" data-attributes="member: 92511">&quot;I throw my +3 eraser! Make a reflex save or by blinded and coughing/choking from the resulting ball of chalk dust for d4 rounds! Then I whip out my silver-edged ruler and move in invoking my 'Advanced Knuckle Smack' feat!&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Yes. It does not quite say &quot;Heroic adventure/exploration of excitement for fame and fortune.&quot; I'm reminded of a cartoon from the 1e DMG which a bunch of adventurers around the gaming table explaining to a comrade that they are playing &quot;Taxes &amp; Townhomes&quot; or &quot;People &amp; Professions&quot; or something like that. hahaha.Well, I get your point, but since the GAME is referencing fictional/literary archetypes, like it does (or should do) for all of the other classes....not seeking to simulate real world neo-paganism, I think we'd be ok. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> You don't here all of the real world Paladins and Bards making a big stink, now do you? Personally, my own game world's &quot;Shaman&quot; class would actually serve to make a decent &quot;Witch&quot;, given I worked out all kinds of &quot;spirit world&quot; and &quot;Hex&quot; powers for them and fits the anthropological &quot;witch&quot; archetype. But the idea that it would be a &quot;Divine&quot; sub-class as opposed to an &quot;Arcane&quot; one might throw people off/stunt imagination.The &quot;Thaumaturge&quot;, also, could be easily fluffed/flavoured as a &quot;Witch&quot; character, I suppose. So I could totally see altering my list to incorporate a &quot;Witch&quot; MU sub-class, instead of &quot;Specialist Mages&quot;...for a core/basic set. If for no other reason than page count, since to introduce Specialists, you're looking at detailing 8 (I would probably start with 4) different specialties and their individual powers. They could definitely be held off for a &quot;Complete Mage&quot; expansion book...which could/might also introduce some form of everyone's so-beloved &quot;Warlock&quot; and/or &quot;Sorcerer&quot; (though gods I hate that distinction/rift of Sorcerer v. Wizard&quot;)With that in mind, the revised list would look something like this...&quot;D&amp;D: Masters &amp; Casters&quot;, if you would:&quot;Priests&quot; (Divine Casters)--Cleric: Divine-base spells/powers, all armor, limited weapons--Druid: Nature-base spells/powers, limtied armor, limited weapons--Shaman: &quot;Primal&quot;/Spirit-base spells/powers, limited armor, limited weapons&quot;Warriors&quot; (Martial Masters)--Barbarian: &quot;Primal&quot;-base skills/powers, limited armor, all weapons--Fighter: &quot;Martial&quot;/Combat-base skills/powers, all armor, all weapons--Paladin: Divine-base skills/powers (no spell use!), all armor, all weapons--Ranger: Nature-base skills/powers (no spell use!), limited armor, all weapons&quot;Mages&quot; (Arcane caster)--Thaumaturge: Divine-flavored ritual caster, Divine &amp; Arcane spell list/powers, no armor, limited weapons--Witch: &quot;Primal&quot; (or Natural if you prefer/might be better to emphasize the difference from the Shaman?)-flavored caster, potion maker, Spirit (or Nature) &amp; Arcane spell list/powers, no armor, limited weapons.--Wizard: Arcane caster, full access to all Arcane skills/powers, no armor, limited weapons. &quot;Rogues&quot; (Skill Masters)--&quot;Avenger&quot; (borrowing the name for lack of a better one since many people seem to really want &quot;Assassins&quot;, but I think the name carries too much &quot;evil&quot;weight. So for lack of a better title, at the moment, we'll go with &quot;Avenger&quot; so that you can effectively be an &quot;Assaassin&quot; or Batman-esque vigilante of any alignment): Martial/Combat-based skills/powers, Thieves Abilities, limited armor, all weapons--Bard: Nature-based skills/powers, magic effected through their music, access to some Divine, some Nature and some Arcane (Illusion) effects, some Thieve's Abilities, limited armor, limited weapons--Thief: Martial/Combat-base skills/powers (Sneak attacks, AoO, and the like), Thieves Abilities, limited armor, limited (no two-handed, except bows) weaponsSoooo, the &quot;power/base&quot; breakdown is...Arcane: Thaumaturges, Witches, Wizards (mixed: Shamans, Bards)Divine: Clerics, Paladins (mixed: Thaumaturges, Bards)Martial: Avengers, Fighters, Thieves (mixed: Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians)Nature: Druids, Rangers, Bards (mixed: possibly Witches)Primal/Spirit: Barbarians, Shamans (mixed: possibly Witches)Casters: Bards, Clerics, Druids, Shamans, Thaumaturges, Witches, Wizards Non-casters: Avengers, Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, ThievesAn even...13?...if anything, as much as I like the idea of a Divine-flavored arcane caster, I suppose the weakest &quot;archetype&quot; here is Thaumaturge. So I could take that out to make a nice round &quot;12 base classes&quot; which seems to be consensus for a golden number...OR, add in another Warrior class, &quot;Knight/Cavalier&quot; as Lanefan suggests/wants, to round up to 14, 7 casters, 7 non-casters, and even it out that way.Off the top of my head, I'd say it would look something like this:&quot;Cavalier/Knight&quot; OO! How about &quot;Crusader&quot; instead?: Martial/Combat base skills/powers, specific/additional &quot;mounted&quot; skills/powers, all armor (focus on heavy), limited weapons (range of options limited to focus on those used from horseback and for face-to-face dualing. Use of a daggers or bows, for example, would be seen as a &quot;coward's weapon&quot;) See, I really don't see this as a strong enough archetype in and of itself to warrant a separate class...any Cleric of a &quot;battle/war&quot; deitywould have this kind of &quot;increased combat spell range/effectiveness, limited healing spells/effectiveness&quot;. One could make the argument to extend&nbsp; it to deities of things like&nbsp; Storms or the Sun or what have you, as long as the religion/deity is&nbsp; fluffed to be battle-focused.It's all in the Complete Mages Compendium, due out on the second Tuesday of Not Yet...since this is all speculation on our part <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. But the more I think about it, the more &quot;specialist mages&quot; don't need to be presented as &quot;beginner/opening set&quot; classes. --SD</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 5786726, member: 92511"] "I throw my +3 eraser! Make a reflex save or by blinded and coughing/choking from the resulting ball of chalk dust for d4 rounds! Then I whip out my silver-edged ruler and move in invoking my 'Advanced Knuckle Smack' feat!" :D Yes. It does not quite say "Heroic adventure/exploration of excitement for fame and fortune." I'm reminded of a cartoon from the 1e DMG which a bunch of adventurers around the gaming table explaining to a comrade that they are playing "Taxes & Townhomes" or "People & Professions" or something like that. hahaha. Well, I get your point, but since the GAME is referencing fictional/literary archetypes, like it does (or should do) for all of the other classes....not seeking to simulate real world neo-paganism, I think we'd be ok. ;) You don't here all of the real world Paladins and Bards making a big stink, now do you? Personally, my own game world's "Shaman" class would actually serve to make a decent "Witch", given I worked out all kinds of "spirit world" and "Hex" powers for them and fits the anthropological "witch" archetype. But the idea that it would be a "Divine" sub-class as opposed to an "Arcane" one might throw people off/stunt imagination.The "Thaumaturge", also, could be easily fluffed/flavoured as a "Witch" character, I suppose. So I could totally see altering my list to incorporate a "Witch" MU sub-class, instead of "Specialist Mages"...for a core/basic set. If for no other reason than page count, since to introduce Specialists, you're looking at detailing 8 (I would probably start with 4) different specialties and their individual powers. They could definitely be held off for a "Complete Mage" expansion book...which could/might also introduce some form of everyone's so-beloved "Warlock" and/or "Sorcerer" (though gods I hate that distinction/rift of Sorcerer v. Wizard") With that in mind, the revised list would look something like this..."D&D: Masters & Casters", if you would: "Priests" (Divine Casters) --Cleric: Divine-base spells/powers, all armor, limited weapons --Druid: Nature-base spells/powers, limtied armor, limited weapons --Shaman: "Primal"/Spirit-base spells/powers, limited armor, limited weapons "Warriors" (Martial Masters) --Barbarian: "Primal"-base skills/powers, limited armor, all weapons --Fighter: "Martial"/Combat-base skills/powers, all armor, all weapons --Paladin: Divine-base skills/powers (no spell use!), all armor, all weapons --Ranger: Nature-base skills/powers (no spell use!), limited armor, all weapons "Mages" (Arcane caster) --Thaumaturge: Divine-flavored ritual caster, Divine & Arcane spell list/powers, no armor, limited weapons --Witch: "Primal" (or Natural if you prefer/might be better to emphasize the difference from the Shaman?)-flavored caster, potion maker, Spirit (or Nature) & Arcane spell list/powers, no armor, limited weapons. --Wizard: Arcane caster, full access to all Arcane skills/powers, no armor, limited weapons. "Rogues" (Skill Masters) --"Avenger" (borrowing the name for lack of a better one since many people seem to really want "Assassins", but I think the name carries too much "evil"weight. So for lack of a better title, at the moment, we'll go with "Avenger" so that you can effectively be an "Assaassin" or Batman-esque vigilante of any alignment): Martial/Combat-based skills/powers, Thieves Abilities, limited armor, all weapons --Bard: Nature-based skills/powers, magic effected through their music, access to some Divine, some Nature and some Arcane (Illusion) effects, some Thieve's Abilities, limited armor, limited weapons --Thief: Martial/Combat-base skills/powers (Sneak attacks, AoO, and the like), Thieves Abilities, limited armor, limited (no two-handed, except bows) weapons Soooo, the "power/base" breakdown is... Arcane: Thaumaturges, Witches, Wizards (mixed: Shamans, Bards) Divine: Clerics, Paladins (mixed: Thaumaturges, Bards) Martial: Avengers, Fighters, Thieves (mixed: Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians) Nature: Druids, Rangers, Bards (mixed: possibly Witches) Primal/Spirit: Barbarians, Shamans (mixed: possibly Witches) Casters: Bards, Clerics, Druids, Shamans, Thaumaturges, Witches, Wizards Non-casters: Avengers, Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Thieves An even...13?...if anything, as much as I like the idea of a Divine-flavored arcane caster, I suppose the weakest "archetype" here is Thaumaturge. So I could take that out to make a nice round "12 base classes" which seems to be consensus for a golden number... OR, add in another Warrior class, "Knight/Cavalier" as Lanefan suggests/wants, to round up to 14, 7 casters, 7 non-casters, and even it out that way. Off the top of my head, I'd say it would look something like this: "Cavalier/Knight" OO! How about "Crusader" instead?: Martial/Combat base skills/powers, specific/additional "mounted" skills/powers, all armor (focus on heavy), limited weapons (range of options limited to focus on those used from horseback and for face-to-face dualing. Use of a daggers or bows, for example, would be seen as a "coward's weapon") See, I really don't see this as a strong enough archetype in and of itself to warrant a separate class...any Cleric of a "battle/war" deitywould have this kind of "increased combat spell range/effectiveness, limited healing spells/effectiveness". One could make the argument to extend it to deities of things like Storms or the Sun or what have you, as long as the religion/deity is fluffed to be battle-focused. It's all in the Complete Mages Compendium, due out on the second Tuesday of Not Yet...since this is all speculation on our part ;). But the more I think about it, the more "specialist mages" don't need to be presented as "beginner/opening set" classes. --SD [/QUOTE]

Verification