Shadowdark Western Reaches Stretch Goal: New Classes

The bold part is endemic, and drives me crazy. There's this assumption that a Paladin must, of course, have Lay on Hands. Or a Barbarian must, of course, have a rage mechanic. Etc.
I think the issue is that a Paladin with mount/lance stuff, but not Lay on Hands or something similar is alien to essentially the last 25 years of Paladins, where clearly LoH has been more definitively Paladin-esque. It's more extreme with a Barbarian, their defining characteristic in D&D-type games has always (or again, for at least 25 years) been Rage. If you're not using that, why use such a baggage-laden name as Barbarian, even? All you're doing is setting people up for disappointment and/or making people think "Huh, this game is different" - but that's not how other classes are designed - indeed the core Shadowdark classes are pretty much what you'd expect, trope-wise.

I think there's a difference between "failing to pare down", and "removing/replacing defining tropes for no apparent reason". Those examples aren't "failing to pare down", certainly "Barbarians should have Rage" isn't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I think the issue is that a Paladin with mount/lance stuff, but not Lay on Hands or something similar is alien to essentially the last 25 years of Paladins, where clearly LoH has been more definitively Paladin-esque. It's more extreme with a Barbarian, their defining characteristic in D&D-type games has always (or again, for at least 25 years) been Rage. If you're not using that, why use such a baggage-laden name as Barbarian, even? All you're doing is setting people up for disappointment and/or making people think "Huh, this game is different" - but that's not how other classes are designed - indeed the core Shadowdark classes are pretty much what you'd expect, trope-wise.

I think there's a difference between "failing to pare down", and "removing/replacing defining tropes for no apparent reason". Those examples aren't "failing to pare down", certainly "Barbarians should have Rage" isn't.
I would hazard a guess that a large percent of the people who play shadow dark have played ad&d or ad&d 2nd ed so the idea of a barbarian going back to something more akin to what they were back then isn't so I familiar.
 

I would hazard a guess that a large percent of the people who play shadow dark have played ad&d or ad&d 2nd ed so the idea of a barbarian going back to something more akin to what they were back then isn't so I familiar.
I don't think that's likely.

I'm guessing you're unaware due to not being geriatric like some of us, but Barbarian wasn't a PHB class in either edition, and was in a poorly-selling (AFAIK) optional sourcebook in 2nd edition (a better selling but still optional one in 1E). And I doubt "a large percent" of the people playing Shadowdark played 1E at all, let alone 2E with said sourcebook.
 


I’m not able to watch the live stream now… What’s it look like? What features are we getting? @Whizbang Dustyboots is making me nervous… Not that I don’t believe in Kelsey’s ability to make an excellent class regardless of the direction she goes, but I was really hoping for a class with an undead “pet.”
 

I’m not able to watch the live stream now… What’s it look like? What features are we getting? @Whizbang Dustyboots is making me nervous… Not that I don’t believe in Kelsey’s ability to make an excellent class regardless of the direction she goes, but I was really hoping for a class with an undead “pet.”
At the moment, it's a death priest that uses bladed weapons, can sense the undead and she is planning on creating a bunch of spells.
 

Well, I’m slightly disappointed in that I was excited to finally have a pet class, but I’m still confident that Kelsey will make something excellent.
And, as a forever-GM, I wouldn’t have ended up playing it anyway :P
 



Remove ads

Top