Should they just start with Fighers and Thieves?

[foolish_mortals]

guys,

should the first rulebook just deal with the simplest of classes like fighters and thieves? Spellcasters are way more complex. Keep it simple so they can get as many people into as they can. I'd be happy with 5 dollar softcover rule books coming out every 3 months or so detailing a new chunk of classes.

foolish_mortals

 

[Salamandyr]

No, but I wouldn't mind (read, I would be disappointed if they don't) seeing the first book/game deal strictly with the fighter, thief, magic user, and cleric.

Start with those base archetypes (the cleric's only there because it's always been there), and show how these can actually be used to play every archetype under the sun. Then have future books add classes to fit certain niche specialties.

 

[Elf Witch]

guys,

should the first rulebook just deal with the simplest of classes like fighters and thieves? Spellcasters are way more complex. Keep it simple so they can get as many people into as they can. I'd be happy with 5 dollar softcover rule books coming out every 3 months or so detailing a new chunk of classes.

foolish_mortals

A big resounding no. Magic is part of the game if you take it out then I think you will lose a lot of players I would be one of them. Now making the game playable without casters if that is what you want should be doable in a modular system.

 

[nnms]

I'd only want to see this if it also involved the ability to immediately add spellcasting as some sort of class feature choice. So in dualclassing terms, you'd have the following starting options:

fighter
thief

fighter/mage
fighter/cleric
fighter/thief
thief/mage
thief/cleric

But generally, no, I think supernatural abilities need to be there from the get go.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Nope. Every edition of DnD that I have played (BECMI+) has had
Ftr/Rog/Wiz/Clr (under one name or another)
Along with
Human/Dwarf/Elf/Halfling
and that has to be the minimum IMO

 

[mhensley]

No, but I find the idea intriguing. I've often thought about what proto-D&D must have looked like. I mean we know that the Cleric was the third class added and it was brought about in-game. So that means that before OD&D and it's 3 classes, there was a proto-D&D that only had the fighting man and the magic-user. I'm guessing that the earliest prototype only had the fighter class.

 

[Raith5]

No. They should not make wizards or clerics too complex. They should be as accessible to a new player as fighter or rouge.

 

[DonTadow]

No, but I find the idea intriguing. I've often thought about what proto-D&D must have looked like. I mean we know that the Cleric was the third class added and it was brought about in-game. So that means that before OD&D and it's 3 classes, there was a proto-D&D that only had the fighting man and the magic-user. I'm guessing that the earliest prototype only had the fighter class.

Thing is, those clases (magic) doesnt have to be that complex. What makes magic complex is spells per day/spells known/preparing/choosing. There are a dozen simpler systems and alterations to the VAtican that can make picking a spell level as easy as picking a class level. As someone mentioned in another thread, A spell web where instead of choosing individual spells, you choose a block at a time.

Not sure if anyone would ever back switching to a point system, but that would make things a lot simpler than figuring out spells remaining and not remaining and carrying them over from day to day. Record keeping sucks for new players (or any).

 

[nnms]

No, but I find the idea intriguing. I've often thought about what proto-D&D must have looked like. I mean we know that the Cleric was the third class added and it was brought about in-game. So that means that before OD&D and it's 3 classes, there was a proto-D&D that only had the fighting man and the magic-user. I'm guessing that the earliest prototype only had the fighter class.

Also, the cleric was brought in as a response to another character who was a vampire (I think his name was Count Fang). So actually vampires as a class predate clerics as a class.

 

[foolish_mortals]

Also, the cleric was brought in as a response to another character who was a vampire (I think his name was Count Fang). So actually vampires as a class predate clerics as a class.

where'd you hear this at? It doesn't seem right, though it could be.

foolish_mortals