Should they just start with Fighers and Thieves?

[Ramaster]

It think not... The "Holy Tetrafecta" of Fighter/Thief/Wizard/Cleric is there for a REASON. Not only do they naturally fulfill the four roles "realistically" needed to adventure on a fantasy setting (Frontline combatant/Specialist/Arcane expert/Healer), they are also so omnipresent on the fantasy medium that a world without any of them would have very different morphology.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Personally, I'd like to see the thief disappear completely. It made sense when their were no skills, but if a game is going to have skills, the thief serves no purpose. Why can't my fighter hide? Why can't my silenced, invisible mage backstab? Just make the thieving skills available to anyone. Anyone can do a backstab if the conditions are met - behind the target and the target being unaware of your existence.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

In a word: No

Olaf the Stout

 

[nnms]

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

foolish_mortals

http://shamsgrog.blogspot.com/2008/06/thank-you-sir-fang.html

It was Sir Fang, not Count Fang.

Mike Mornard recounts it here:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php...ic-Mage-split-come-from&p=5787205#post5787205

 

[foolish_mortals]

Sham's Grog 'n Blog: Thank You Sir Fang!

It was Sir Fang, not Count Fang.

Mike Mornard recounts it here:

[Historical] Where did the Cleric/Mage split come from? - Page 3

I'm not going to nitpick about this but I'm not trusting some post in a forum as the definative source for where the Cleric came from. I can look at wikipedia and get a completely different story. That's ok though since it's not that important.

foolish_mortals

 

[nnms]

Old Geezer on rpg.net is one of the original players in Arneson's Blackmoor Campaign and a regular player in Gary Gygax's gaming group.

Believe what you like.

It is however, relevant to the topic at hand.

You (and many others) may have some sort of idea that the early days and campaigns related to D&D were some serious high concept work of art. It wasn't. It was a bunch of guys having fun with stuff inspired by books and cheesy movies (or even cheesy music).

The original classes of D&D are not sacrosanct or born out of some great insight into the fantasy genre or game design. They were the result of people having fun making crap up.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?399048-Tales-from-the-Fortress-of-Geezertude

The thing is, lads and lasses, that I do best when riffing off a question -- like "Why the monk?" -- "Because Jim Ward thought 'Kung-Fu Fighting' was a funny song, that's why" or "Where did Clerics come from?"

You can also read through the tons of Q&A posts with Gygax here on Enworld as well as many other original D&D/TSR people over on dragonsfoot.org

Just because you don't like the early history of the hobby doesn't mean it's not the case.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php...-Fortress-of-Geezertude&p=9140696#post9140696

Because Jim Ward liked the old "Kung Fu" TV show and that "Kung Fu Fighting" song.

They started out as "Chaotic Kung-Fu Fighters" and every time Jim rolled them on the wandering monster table he'd start singing "Woah - oh - oh - ohhhhh,"

In other words, we made up some that we thought would be fun.

It can certainly be a shock to the "roleplaying is serious business" people to learn about stuff like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhUkGIsKvn0

 

[Stormonu]

I'd rather that the wizard (and cleric) weren't left out.

As an aside, I'd think it'd be kind of nifty if as a side product they offered a trade-sized player's rule book that covered the basic rules and one class. "The Fighter's Manual" has a nice ring. Kudos if they could get away with "Tome of Puissant Skill at Arms" .

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

This would be fine for me.

Less than those four archetypical roles would be too little. Anything beyond can wait.

 

[mmadsen]

should the first rulebook just deal with the simplest of classes like fighters and thieves?

I really like the idea of mundane characters being "more core" than magical characters, but you'd need a game system where a half-dozen sell-swords could (a) distinguish themselves from one another, and (b) form an effective adventuring party.

 

[paladinm]

Hey.. OD&D only had Cleric, MU and Fighter.. and there has been much talk about having a generic Spellcaster class.. Do we really only have 2 classes? The line between fighter and thief is best determined by abilities, skills, feats, weapons, armor, etc. The difference between cleric and MU is power source (make turning undead another "spell"). Does this ever simplify things