I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me

[Desdichado]

What is the Rogue problem? I'm not following you there.

 

[Turjan]

What is the Rogue problem? I'm not following you there.

I was just commenting on some of the intrinsic constraints of D&D, which usually require a party to have a cleric and a rogue. Most other classes are exchangeable. Of course, a DM can adjust the game a bit, but then it's not typical D&D.

 

[Staffan]

Principally, you are right with this assumption. That part of AU that carries the most setting specific information are the races, IMHO.

That's pretty much true for D&D as well (well, that and the clerics, who are tied to the setting via their deity). You have things like halflings being nomads, dwarves and elves not being particularly fond of one another, and so on.

 

[fanboy2000]

I was just commenting on some of the intrinsic constraints of D&D, which usually require a party to have a cleric and a rogue. Most other classes are exchangeable. Of course, a DM can adjust the game a bit, but then it's not typical D&D.

Huh? I've ran many, many games without either a rogue or a cleric, and it's always been typical D&D. And when I say, we didn't have a cleric, I mean no acess to healing spells. No cleric, the ranger never cast a single spell, and the druid refused to cast healing spells. I ran a core+some PrC and feats from the splat books game with lots rolepaying, combat, saving the world/village/nation from COBRA, a ruthless terrorist organization out to rule the world. (Just kidding about COBRA )

 

[Desdichado]

I've never heard of that problem with the Rogue, and I've certainly never heard it called "the Rogue problem." You'd probably make a better case for it being "The Cleric Problem" but even then I'd disagree with you.

Heck, we just had a session last night of "typical D&D" with only a first level rogue (and even then, he only took it for the skills, which he needed for his background amd which aren't very typical Rogue-like; his continued development will be in the Psion class) and no cleric.

 

[Turjan]

I've never heard of that problem with the Rogue, and I've certainly never heard it called "the Rogue problem." You'd probably make a better case for it being "The Cleric Problem" but even then I'd disagree with you.

Heck, we just had a session last night of "typical D&D" with only a first level rogue (and even then, he only took it for the skills, which he needed for his background amd which aren't very typical Rogue-like; his continued development will be in the Psion class) and no cleric.

Okay, a DM can obviously accommodate his group by chosing the adventures accordingly. Just don't let a group without a cleric and a rogue stumble into a typical published adventure. I know there are ways around these deficiences, but they are typically quite a hassle.

Of course, in your own world, you are the king .

 

[woodelf]

I've never heard of that problem with the Rogue, and I've certainly never heard it called "the Rogue problem." You'd probably make a better case for it being "The Cleric Problem" but even then I'd disagree with you.

Heck, we just had a session last night of "typical D&D" with only a first level rogue (and even then, he only took it for the skills, which he needed for his background amd which aren't very typical Rogue-like; his continued development will be in the Psion class) and no cleric.

Point is, there are basically two "vital" skills in D&D that only one class has: healing, and trap-finding. Now, D&D3E mollified this a bit by giving bards access to both of these. However, the basic point is still relatively valid: without a rogue (or bard) you can't find traps. Not, "you can't find traps very well"--you can't find traps. Similarly, without a cleric (or bard), you basically can't heal. This one's not quite as bad, because you also have paladins, rangers, and druids, on top of bards. There's also the "no turning" element of not having a cleric, but, in general, you can fight appropriate-challenge undead in other ways (spells, hacking), it's just not as easy.

Contrast these with fighting: you can fight without any warrior classes, you just don't do it very well. More importantly, you can fight just fine without any, say, fighters. Likewise, for magic in general, there's no "one special class" that is necessary--and, especially in D&D3E, usually any of the primary spellcasters (druid, cleric, wizard, maybe sorcerer) has a solution potentially in their spells, even if one class has the best solution.

And, of course, you can easily obviate the need for a chunk of skill, should you want to. Frex, i'm not planning on using undead in my current campaign (though, in my case, just because i think that they are over-used as the "major badguys that everyone can hate" in D&D, and i want to go a different route).

 

[woodelf]

Principally, you are right with this assumption. That part of AU that carries the most setting specific information are the races, IMHO. There's lots of flavour connected to them, and this particular mix of races generates the distinct "Diamond Throne" atmosphere.

I don't think anyone's disputing that. Though i'll counter that i haven't had to make *any* changes to major race relations or race history to make them fit seamlessly into a pseudo-Arabian setting (mostly based on Al Qadim/Zakhara), and i don't think it feels any more like Diamond Throne than Scarred Lands feels like Tolkien.

On the flipside, i think that the D&D3E mix of races is *just* as flavor-carrying as the AU ones. IMHO, if you don't think so, it's just due to familiarity/exposure.

 

[woodelf]

I don't get it.
In Eberron, no one knows if the gods are real, but it still has clerics and paladins (divine magic is based on faith).

What's your point?

Geoff.

So, if you can cause someone to doubt, they lose their magic? If not, then it's not based on faith. Moreover, can someone who believes in a god that the GM knows doesn't actually exist in the world gain magic powers? If not, then it's not based on faith. Finally, i'm talking about a world where there is nothing that those who claim to receive power from the gods can do that those who don't believe can't. IOW, if you really want to keep the true existence of divinities a question, it must be possible for someone to do everything the faithful do without a single iota of faith or belief. So long as you keep the arcane/divine magic divide, and have other things that are "faithful-only" (like turning undead), you're undermining an "ambiguous divinity" paradigm, IMHO.

IMHO, if you have game-mechanical (and thus "real") constructs that are only available to characters that believe (in some mechanical sense), then you don't have ambiguous divinity. Now, if you instead have game-mechanicl constructs that are divorced from the belief element (so, frex, anyone *could* learn to turn undead, even if most who do so claim to have divine inspiration), then it lends aid to the ambiguity.

Is that clearer?

 

[Turjan]

I don't think anyone's disputing that. Though i'll counter that i haven't had to make *any* changes to major race relations or race history to make them fit seamlessly into a pseudo-Arabian setting (mostly based on Al Qadim/Zakhara), and i don't think it feels any more like Diamond Throne than Scarred Lands feels like Tolkien.

Well, I really don't know how you want to fit the whole Giants/Sibeccai history in Al Qadim. Of course, you can always do that, but it's not Al Qadim any more *shrug*. Anyway, my answer included that races are that part of AU that is the easiest to change. Classes and spells, like in standard D&D, are much harder to change, and this is not necessary in AU.

On the flipside, i think that the D&D3E mix of races is *just* as flavor-carrying as the AU ones. IMHO, if you don't think so, it's just due to familiarity/exposure.

I suppose that nobody doubts this point . It's one reason that made me hesitate when I looked at Eberron. The standard races look somewhat out of place there - IMHO and YMMV, as usual .