Legends and Lore 2011 Compilation

[Aldarc]

Do you think most people consider a dedicated healer class a mainstay of D&D?

I'm kind of in agreement with the article. I think the dedicated healer (along with divine magic) has become a sacred cow that people would be up in arms about losing although it's a position that is only played by the few. So yes, most people probably would consider a dedicated healer class a mainstay of D&D, despite my despite my general opinion that D&D could be more robust without it. Really D&D classes could be reduced to the core three archetypes: warrior, rogue, and mage. Everything else is basically just variations of these three in different combinations.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm kind of in agreement with the article. I think the dedicated healer (along with divine magic) has become a sacred cow that people would be up in arms about losing although it's a position that is only played by the few. So yes, most people probably would consider a dedicated healer class a mainstay of D&D, despite my despite my general opinion that D&D could be more robust without it. Really D&D classes could be reduced to the core three archetypes: warrior, rogue, and mage. Everything else is basically just variations of these three in different combinations.

I agree in principle regarding the reduction of classes, which tend to be a rules bloater anyway. For G&G, I decided I liked the idea of three paths (rather than classes) that focus on the Mental, Physical, and Spiritual aspects of play. I think "Rogues" and many classes can be emulated with such a base design. Rogues tend to be a catch all but there are different types of rogues, most with some degree of Physical elements and varying degrees of Mental elements. And why not a Spiritual oriented rogue, an investigator attached to a temple or some such? Straight fighter, wizard, or healer are easy enough to handle with such a system . . . and if you want to create various combinations that become a war priest, a paladin, a ranger, a sorcerer, a druid . . . all would involve combinations of the paths to taste.

 

[Aldarc]

I agree in principle regarding the reduction of classes, which tend to be a rules bloater anyway. For G&G, I decided I liked the idea of three paths (rather than classes) that focus on the Mental, Physical, and Spiritual aspects of play. I think "Rogues" and many classes can be emulated with such a base design. Rogues tend to be a catch all but there are different types of rogues, most with some degree of Physical elements and varying degrees of Mental elements. And why not a Spiritual oriented rogue, an investigator attached to a temple or some such? Straight fighter, wizard, or healer are easy enough to handle with such a system . . . and if you want to create various combinations that become a war priest, a paladin, a ranger, a sorcerer, a druid . . . all would involve combinations of the paths to taste.

Especially in a 3e-type system in which you pick up class levels just to get particular abilities for the archetype, allowing you to quickly mix and match the right combination to create your character concept. d20 Modern and Star Wars Saga Edition really "got" and understood that core mentality that lied behind the 3e system. True20 does as well, but it still does not overcome just how front-loaded the first level of a 3e class can be. I could see different mage-classes built around the actual play-style itself, and then the player could select their power source (e.g., arcane, pact [e.g., divine, demonic, diabloic, etc.], psionic, etc.). Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved also created a universal magic system that allowed for the spell-casting classes to be defined more by their play-style than having their power-source define the play-style.

 

[Mark CMG]

Especially in a 3e-type system in which you pick up class levels just to get particular abilities for the archetype, allowing you to quickly mix and match the right combination to create your character concept. d20 Modern and Star Wars Saga Edition really "got" and understood that core mentality that lied behind the 3e system. True20 does as well, but it still does not overcome just how front-loaded the first level of a 3e class can be. I could see different mage-classes built around the actual play-style itself, and then the player could select their power source (e.g., arcane, pact [e.g., divine, demonic, diabloic, etc.], psionic, etc.). Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved also created a universal magic system that allowed for the spell-casting classes to be defined more by their play-style than having their power-source define the play-style.

I see what you're saying but personally think the rules should be separate from setting, and allow setting to handle the questions regarding things like source of magic. Of course, if a system needs to have setting tied directly to it, then your suggestion makes sense.

 

[Aldarc]

I see what you're saying but personally think the rules should be separate from setting, and allow setting to handle the questions regarding things like source of magic. Of course, if a system needs to have setting tied directly to it, then your suggestion makes sense.

Oh, I quite agree with your assessment here, and I'm sorry if that was not communicated well in my post. My suggestions were indeed proposed more in the conditional sense of "if a system needs to have a setting tied directly into it..."

 

[Mark CMG]

Oh, I quite agree with your assessment here, and I'm sorry if that was not communicated well in my post. My suggestions were indeed proposed more in the conditional sense of "if a system needs to have a setting tied directly into it..."

Thanks, I see.


(I gave out too much XP today!)

 

[Wiseblood]

I took the survey. I put a 3 in how well my position was addressed. Of the things that were covered, most were in agreement with my position. It is the questions they did not ask that cause me to doubt that that my position will really be covered.
Now I need to reread. That's what compilations are all about.

 

[Aldarc]

I took the survey. I put a 3 in how well my position was addressed. Of the things that were covered, most were in agreement with my position. It is the questions they did not ask that cause me to doubt that that my position will really be covered.
Now I need to reread. That's what compilations are all about.

Hopefully you a least included your questions in the the space provided.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

Now if only someone would compile the various ENWorld threads dedicated to the L&L columns...

I just wanted to pop in to let you guys know that I read over and compile reports on these every week, along with a lot of other conversationson the site. I just don't always have the time to pop in and say something, and when I do, it's usually just to clarify something.

So yeah, you're being heard - I just don't do the best job of telling you you're being heard

 

[Aldarc]

I just wanted to pop in to let you guys know that I read over and compile reports on these every week, along with a lot of other conversationson the site. I just don't always have the time to pop in and say something, and when I do, it's usually just to clarify something.

So yeah, you're being heard - I just don't do the best job of telling you you're being heard

I meant more in terms of reading the compiled threads for my own purposes, but this is also good to know.