WotC_PeterS: Class Names| NEW: Rouse-ist parts of PHB
arscott
First Post
I, as a DM, detest Thief as a class name, because it has the unfortunate tendency to cause certain players to act like kleptomaniac toddlers. Sure, some of the Sword & Sorcery characters that inspired that class were pretty interesting, but they were interesting because they were cunning rogues rather than some Tasslehoff Burrfoot wannabe.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
I want a beserker-like character who can summon the powers of an elephant.. a Babararian!
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Gloombunny said:
Except, as I pointed out, they do. Or rather, they used to. 3E changed what a Barbarian is to such an extent that you're probably right about that (he bears little to no resemblence to the 1E Barb and little similarity to the 2E Barb). Thieves had skills related to thievery, which naturally includes surprise attacks. I've never come across anyone, no matter how "new to RPGs" who was surprised or "didn't expect" a thief to be able to make some kind of surprise attack. Trap-disarming is a thieving skill, and was associated with larcenous characters long before D&D. Who is surprised by that?
Rogue is far more vague. It is better in the long run (but confuses players in the short term, in my experience), because it offers more possible interpretations of the character's role, as noted by other posters, but it's the exact same sort of name as Fighter, which is what I was mainly commenting on (criticising one for those reasons whilst lauding the other is a bit wierd, to say the least).
I do agree that IF the Barbarian's main deal is Berzerking, then he should be a Berzerker (he should also lose the unconnected nature-oriented skill-set). However, I think that's a pretty damn lame main deal, so I'd rather see them expand his options (and particularly take him back to being "anti-magic"), which is what they've hinted at doing.
As for the people whining about Barbarian being cultural, well, dudes, so is Ranger who uses a bow and sneaks through the forest being friends with the animals, yet no-one seems to complain about that. As for it being perjorative, I'm pretty sure Barbarians have reclaimed it successfully
The original 1E Barbarian was PROUD to be a Barbarian, not a weak, soft city-dweller or farmer. The 3E Berserker with some nature skills is admittedly more confused (but then in 3E they couldn't have designed a character who didn't use magical items without him seeming wildly overpowered and illustrative of the horrible magic-item-obsession of 3E's system).arscott said:
This sounds a lot like "Evil PCs make players behave like disruptive morons!" to me. I.e. blame the system for silly players. I've seen just as much/little "I steal it from Party Member Y's backpack" from Rogues as Thieves.
TerraDave said:
Cute. Puerile, but cute.
I especially like how he sandwiches in the traditional names with obviously stupid, straw-man names.
This way, all of us idiots who actually liked such an unfun game as D&D can feel oh-so-grateful that WOTC isn't making new classes called Dung Delver.
God, I never knew I wasn't having any fun for the 23+ years I was playing the game. How could I, with dumb character classes like "Fighter". Thank you WOTC, for all your unnecessary "improvements".
I guess Bards just aren't "Cool" enough anymore. Or copyrightable...
Last edited:
Oh, get over it! First of all, this isn't a "he did", this is a "I left my whiteboard with a heading on it, and this is what came out!" (per the last blog post).Clavis said:
Second of all, these are people's wacky ideas and random thoughts, not a concentrated malicious attack on you and all you love. Fighter is a silly name, though I don't think 'bard' belongs on that list.
And you misused straw-man -- or possibly used it coincidentally correctly, because the offense you're taking is probably unwarranted.
Deep breathing, man -- the blinding rage you feel is just the internet, doing its thing.
Lackhand said:
Oh, it isn't blinding rage. It's nausea at the way a carefully crafted corperate PR strategy is being presented, and accepted, as the random thoughts of game-loving designers, none of whom ever seem to question the basic design decisions of 4th edition. No dissent apparently at WOTC. 100% agreement that the game has always been in desperate need of rewriting by the brave WOTC designers. Of course, in America we've been subjected to this kind of manipulation by marketers for so long we don't even mind it anymore. The same people who rabidly defended 3rd edition when the Grognards pointed out that the game was hopelessly broken, are now the same people who talk about how many problems 3rd edition had, and why we need 4th edition. Will the fanboys follow the corperate party line when Hasbro decides that 4th edition is broken, and a 5th edition is needed? Almost certainly.
Remathilis
Legend
Clavis said:
Psst... There Is No Cabal...