Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8201486" data-attributes="member: 18">Yeah what I'm saying is, and you're sort of agreeing with via examples is that those are people who aren't adventurers/heroes. Those people who don't have their own books. They're not as skilled at fighting as the sort of people PCs are. That's why those examples - they're side-characters and people who don't have lines and get summarily defeated by the main characters. There's nothing distinctive or special about them. If they did have a book about them, suddenly they'd be more distinctive and specially trained, like the dude in Legend (the book, not the movie), who ends up basically as a &quot;Barbarian&quot;-type character at the core. Less is more - they're not going to have a million classes in book one, though I expect they would have a lot more &quot;fighting person&quot; classes than D&amp;D.I mean, if we look at someone like Vimes in Guards, Guards, he's an investigator and negotiator and not a particularly special fighter. Though maybe that's an interesting point? Would see a Sherlock Holmes/Brother Cadfael/The Name of the Rose/etc. class? I think if there was a &quot;skill monkey&quot;-type class, that's what we'd be looking at. Like everone in AUD&amp;D he's basically competent at fighting and has his own style (Sherlock had his Savate/stick-fighting, Cadfael was an ex-crusader, etc.), but maybe his &quot;main deal&quot; is investigation stuff - like maybe investigating things fill the same sort of role in AUD&amp;D that traps and locks did in earlier D&amp;D in our history?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8201486, member: 18"] Yeah what I'm saying is, and you're sort of agreeing with via examples is that those are people who [I]aren't [/I]adventurers/heroes. Those people who don't have their own books. They're not as skilled at fighting as the sort of people PCs are. That's why those examples - they're side-characters and people who don't have lines and get summarily defeated by the main characters. There's nothing distinctive or special about them. If they did have a book about them, suddenly they'd be more distinctive and specially trained, like the dude in Legend (the book, not the movie), who ends up basically as a "Barbarian"-type character at the core. Less is more - they're not going to have a million classes in book one, though I expect they would have a lot more "fighting person" classes than D&D. I mean, if we look at someone like Vimes in Guards, Guards, he's an investigator and negotiator and not a particularly special fighter. Though maybe that's an interesting point? Would see a Sherlock Holmes/Brother Cadfael/The Name of the Rose/etc. class? I think if there was a "skill monkey"-type class, that's what we'd be looking at. Like everone in AUD&D he's basically competent at fighting and has his own style (Sherlock had his Savate/stick-fighting, Cadfael was an ex-crusader, etc.), but maybe his "main deal" is investigation stuff - like maybe investigating things fill the same sort of role in AUD&D that traps and locks did in earlier D&D in our history? [/QUOTE]

Verification