>Fighter
>Mage
>Thief
Let me guess, you need more?
>b-but cleric
being religious is a lifestyle. It's like having a class for being rich or a great merchant
![]() |
![]() Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
![]() |
>Fighter
>Mage
>Thief
Let me guess, you need more?
>b-but cleric
being religious is a lifestyle. It's like having a class for being rich or a great merchant
![]() |
![]() Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
![]() |
>Punches the shit out of u
>including Thief
Absolute pleb shit. Fighting-Man and Magic-User are the only two classes you need. Both of them should be checking for traps and secret doors anyway.
the trickster who manages his problems without using direct force all the time is literally one of the oldest and most archetypical stories humans have told eachother. you can technically play a character like this who is secretly a fighter, but why the frick would you make a character whos all about fighting and then not fight things with them?
thief/rogue/dickhead is important to fill all the areas the big 2 don't
Odysseus was a trickster, but he was still fricking jacked. Being able to solve problems with cunning or pick a lock or pocket isn't mutually exclusive to knowing how to swing a sword or shoot a bow.
Wrong! The trickster and fighter are usually the same character in most archetypical stories. The thief started out as a shitty DnD homebrew class and making it official was the biggest mistake DnD ever did.
>the trickster who manages his problems without using direct force all the time
Can as easily be a merchant, prince or cortesan instead of a thief.
>Can as easily be a merchant, prince or cortesan instead of a thief.
Okay but none of those fall under fighting man or magic-user either, which is the entire point. A trickster archetype who gets by with cleverness instead of brute force or frickoff magic powers is an incredibly enduring archetype in storytelling, and saying "just make your full-plate armored knight who has mastered every weapon from the longbow to the halberd to the siege tower also a silver tongue devil" is NOT what people want.
The Tom Sawyer type is not the same character as the guy who beats ogres to death with his gauntleted fists. Anansi swapping his balls with those of a tiger to explain why spiders have so many more children. Clever Coyote telling the world's first lie and laughing everywhere he goes. Conning the devil in a fiddling contest. May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil know's you're dead.
Someone like Odysseus is still ultimately a warrior and commander and (in addition to being fricking a divine champion directly receiving the goodboypoints and backing of Athena) is a freak physical specimen strong enough to shoot a bow nobody else can even draw, he's not the sort of trickster people want when they picture a rogueish scoundrel.
>Someone like Odysseus is still ultimately a warrior and commander and (in addition to being fricking a divine champion directly receiving the goodboypoints and backing of Athena) is a freak physical specimen strong enough to shoot a bow nobody else can even draw
And yet the bulk of the Odyssey is him being a trickster, because despite being ridiculously strong, the things he's up against require trickery
>he's not the sort of trickster people want when they picture a rogueish scoundrel.
And yet he's still a trickster. The ability to be a trickster shouldn't be portioned off into an entirely separate class.
From the sound of it, what you're asking about is as simple as not playing a warrior with high strength. If you want to be a twink who only uses daggers, the option still exists.
>The Tom Sawyer type is not the same character as the guy who beats ogres to death with his gauntleted fists
Odysseus also doesn't beat ogres to death with his gauntleted fists. Two characters of the same class can and should be capable of being different.
>saying "just make your full-plate armored knight who has mastered every weapon from the longbow to the halberd to the siege tower also a silver tongue devil" is NOT what people want.
So do people want to say "just make your pyromancer also a necromancer and oracle and summoner and alchemist and have encyclopedic knowledge of scholarly topics unrelated to magic"? Because that's how broad Mage is as a class, and yet people still manage to make characters that exclude aspects of it that they don't want.
If you don't want your pyromancer to be a summoner, don't take summon spells. If you don't want your warrior to wear full plate, don't buy full plate.
>The ability to be a trickster shouldn't be portioned off into an entirely separate class
we'll simply agree to disagree. this exact argument can be applied to martial ability and being skilled with weapons and armor, there's no reason the only two classes couldn't be "magic user" or "expert" with both being capable of wearing full plate and chopping dragon's heads off. You're drawing an entirely arbitrary distinction and demanding the entire world bend over to accommodate it. Someone who says "I want to be Tom Sawyer" is just as valid as someone saying "I want to be John Fighterman"
>there's no reason the only two classes couldn't be "magic user" or "expert"
Why yes, a Caster class and a Martial class is all that's needed to cover literally every classic fantasy archetype.
martials don't need a class, the trickster or wizard can both wear full plate and use weapons which are just equipment options anyone can take
Finally anon sees the light of classless systems
Nah, obviously we need a warrior, wizard, trickster, thief, rogue, scoundrel, and swashbuckler class, just to really cover our bases.
The thief class only limits what other classes can do. If a thief class exists it automatically assumes that all Fighters are just dumb warriors who only knows how to hit things. If the thief exists and is the one good at sneaking and cunning, it assumes that no one else can do those things.
This is directly contrary to archetypical stories. Frick you and your Thief class, I want a silver tongued trickster Fighter like Conan.
> I want a silver tongued trickster Fighter like Conan.
so what you actually want is a game with multiclassing that doesn't suck dick
No? I want the thief's abilities to be distributed to all other classes.
then the solution is to delete fighter and just let people be battlemages or armored finesse fighters
A rogue is just an indirect fighter. It's a personality not worthy of a class.
>muh sneak
Anyone can sneak.
This. Thief is the one that needs "archetype protection" in order to exist and indeed should just be thrown to the garbage bin. A fighting-man can be a thief just fine.
Damn straight. Rolling thief into fighter makes both better. Thieves aren't skillmonkeys with sneak, and fighters can actually have the utility they USED to have before they ripped it out for archetype protection.
>Figher
>Fighter's buffbot b***h
Yup yup.
This, you shouldn't have to pick a specific class to be able to hear noises.
>Let me guess, you need more?
Nah, I need something that doesn't blow holes in its own logic by having mundane classes with no defenses against ubiquitous magic going on adventures where said magic will be arrayed against them.
Lucky for me, my game will allow piecing together a character's kit of talents via race and ability categories to suit combat roles, instead of creating senseless pigeonholes.
Classless systems are a lie and lame
Class systems are lame and gay. And even if you do use class systems, making "guy who is good at non-combat stuff without magic" and "guy who fights good without magic" different classes is moronic on top of being lame and gay.
Spotted the idiot magic-determistic mongrel
My game isn't classless. Each race and ability is a classification, and there's more freedom to combine these classifications than just being stuck with a combination of techniques that are worthless or don't fit into the world.
No, you just have room temperature IQ. My GURPS character conforms not at all to any conceivable class template. I spent only around 10 character points on things related to combat.
>It's like having a class for being rich or a great merchant
I love playing merchants and traders in games. Makes the entire game feel more realistic if the purpose of adventuring is to just get rich quick, go legit, and then never set foot in a dungeon ever again. The closest you get is sending other morons into dungeons to collect YOUR treasure. Admit it, in the end? We all end up as local lords.
the local lord was an adventurer that was lucky enough to survive and get rich now he is sending other to do his job
>in the end? We all end up as local lords.
My characters always wind up dead by design
>We all end up as local lords.
This is actually the reason why the governments of my setting established adventurer guilds. Every generation has some unwashed plebs, third sons, or disgruntled priests go into monster lairs, come out rich, only to spend it all on equipment so they can do it again and become richer than the King... Well eventually they'll be one man armies. So the Lords, who were adventurers themselves, decides to frick that noise, and established adventurer guilds. Tax them, take their magical items, limit the amount of spells they are legally allowed to have, enforce these rules with the regular army (and them being adventurers themselves), make sure they can't become powerful enough that you can't stop them. As of now, any group I ran this setting for has yet to rebel or try to weasel out. I'd allow it. But they hear adventurer's guild and they just follow the rules. It's amazing.
Stephen? That you, you gish loving strawberry? What the frick are you doing here?
Interesting proposition. How would you do that? Mechanically/lore/whatever. Probably the best I've seen is actually from the Medieval player's manual (Mythic Vistas, Green Ronin, d20 system). The Saint class basically picks feats that act as passives, reactions, or spells that give him bonuses. Anything from strong body, to the Dream spell, to being glib and gaining a bonus on Charisma rolls, and I'm sure there's one that deals damage to anyone who attacks you first.
>Tax them, take their magical items, limit the amount of spells they are legally allowed to have, enforce these rules with the regular army (and them being adventurers themselves), make sure they can't become powerful enough that you can't stop them.
This is entirely redundant. You don't really need to tax them, but employing them is the idea yeah. You give them an honest wage and tie fees and commissions to legal ownership of deadly magical items. For example, a Wand of Fireball isn't confiscated because if a person was strong enough to get their hands on one or even more terrifying, make one, you want them on your side or in the grave yesterday.
Well, you can't just kill them because then it incentivizes your enemies to make a better offer that doesn't involve killing them in exchange for doing business with them. Instead, apply a registration fee, keep track of who owns what, and if need be, establish policies by which the crown can lawfully claim it without pissing the individual should they need to do so (say for example in a time of war). Really though, with how you've described it? It makes rebellion the only logical outcome, the only reason is that the game runner might tantrum out and end the game for the players trying to ruin their grimderp wankfest.
But ultimately, it is easier to add such an individual to the payroll instead of just default expect them to play along or not turn towards organized crime, or rebellion. I know that if I heard there was a TAX or a policy of confiscating magical items and a limit on spells, I am immediately turning towards gunrunning. We're not enemies exactly, I'm just profiting off of a Black Market you've decided to set up for me.
>As of now, any group I ran this setting for has yet to rebel or try to weasel out. I'd allow it. But they hear adventurer's guild and they just follow the rules. It's amazing.
It sounds like you have a nice stock of sheep.
>It's like having a class for being rich or a great merchant
ENTER
>being religious is a lifestyle
And.. so is being a thief, or a warrior for that matter? It's the difference between an occasional pickpocket and a professional burglar, a man who owns a sword for home defense and a trained soldier, a nobleman who knows a couple magic tricks to liven up his parties and a wizard who's dedicated his life to the study of spellcraft; and for that matter; a layman who goes to church every other sunday when he feels like it and a holy man traveling across the world, healing the sick and weary by the power and faith of his god. This is why we have Classes, they display the appropriate level of skill and competence related to a particular profession and lifestyle. Now, take your shallow reductive minimalism elsewhere.
I only play fighter-mage
Separating cleric makes sense if divine powers function inherently differently than mage spells (and having to follow alignment to keep casting spells isn't really different enough).
>It's like having a class for being a merchant
Yes, and? WFRP2, one of the singularly greatest systems, have a wealth of careers regarding setting-appropriate lifestyles, social classes, and functions.
And they're all nearly identical in function.
>being religious is a lifestyle. It's like having a class for being rich or a great merchant
The bait is horrible but I'm genuinely curious how longer you can keep up the moron act. Have you considered that there's more to being a cleric than just faith? Any old npc can believe in god(s), just like they can pick up a sword, study the arcane, or pickpocket. But just engaging with the surface level action doesn't make you of that class, or even knowledgeable about that particular activity. Some people are culturally religious, for instance, and don't have a deeper connection with the spiritual than average. With the cleric, it's almost always about devotion to a deity that's so strong the person is rewarded with the tools and support they need to carry out their deity's will. It doesn't end ar just believing, you've got shit to do and a role to fill. You could argue that's still a 'lifestyle' I guess but at that point every other class would be a 'lifestyle' too.
The difference between a cleric as a character class vs a mundane clergyman, priest, or other holy person (according to D&D PHB for what it's worth) is that the cleric can cast divine magic by channeling their God's power through faith.
The priest(s) of a dumpy little village will most likely not have "cleric" listed as their class. They'll just be an ordinary dude that's really into their god. Unless their god has granted them magic powers, they are not RPG clerics.
That being said, you could argue that cleric is just a divine subclass or archetype of mage.
>you could argue that cleric is just a divine subclass or archetype of mage.
Cleric is the original fighter-mage multi-class and also the result of player whinging about an OP antagonist.
>That being said, you could argue that cleric is just a divine subclass or archetype of mage.
Clerics tend to go for a support/heal or tank role while mages are generally about offensive magic and likely some utility spells, so the overlap isn't that big. By this logic, Thief would be a subtype of Fighter since they both use weapons. Technically true but it's not a fair comparison.
Just depends on the setting. Divine healing/support magic is frequently secularized as life magic or white magic or something like that. A faithless red mage can still heal with white magic.
As for rogues and fighters, what sets them apart is fighters focus primarily on fighting. Rogue types have more than just raw fighting prowess; usually skills that help them do sneaky shit or intrigue. Or if you want to blur the fighter/rogue line, advanced combat tricks/maneuvers that are more like acrobatics than actually fighting. Shit like that.
If you want to be reductionist though, you could probably say rogues are just really sneaky/graceful fighters.
Sure bro, I want a merchant class and a noble class.
Do you use third party, are you going to homebrew it, or should I homebrew it myself? I know a couple systems that have merchant and noble as classes, bet I can translate them to whatever system we're gonna play.
You do play games, don't you?
Thief isn't a class, that's just a criminal. Imagine meeting a party of heroes and there's a dude with a sword, a dude with a wand, and a dude who has to inform you of his crimes if he moves into your neighborhood.
What about my hybrid Cthulu Warlock / Artificer anon?!
>making classes a thing
>the real distinction is somehow "can your noncaster do clever tricks or not"
fricking D&D istfg
Classless systems are lame and gay.
Why yes i want a merchant class
What if you have more than 3 friends IRL? Bonus question: and they all want to play a unique class?
>It's like having a class for being rich or a great merchant
>Stats, skills, feats
Let me guess, you need classes?
>b-but my hit die
You have a CON score for that, and if the game is well designed, a sorcerer or a rogue will have at least two other abilities to prioritize over it.
>b-but class features and BAB and spells
If the game was well designed, feats would provide all you need in that regard too.
Same could be said about classless systems. There's good ones (CoC comes to mind) and there's bad ones (GURPS). I've seen classless systems with too many choices, most of which are absolutely weaker than others. That's not "game mastery", that's just bad design so the group that puts too much time on to the game can feel superior. Then there's those that require prerequisites that ultimately end up in the standard classes as well unless you want to play an unplayable mess. Then there's those that have just the right amount of everything.
Same could be said about class systems. 3.x has fifty variants of Rogue, all slightly different from each other. 2e and 5e has the major classes and then kits/specs. OK. You want to play a Wizard that specifically specializes is Illusions? A Viking style Fighter? A more fighting Paladin? An unarmored warrior? 2e was better in this regard, and I'd argue as far as 5e goes, Sorcerers, Artificer, and Warlocks should have been Wizard specs. Warlock MAYBE, since there's a lot of different things you can draw power from, but Sorcerer is just boring, and Artificer added nothing of interest. In fact, the OG Artificers from 2e were Wizard specs (Al-Qadim's Clockwork mage for example) and one was a Fighter (either a Gnome or Dwarf specific kit that uses guns).
There are other good class systems. Ryuutama. Basic enough classes. WoD aren't called classes, but for all intents and purposes they are. WHF. And there's BAD ones. Cyberpunk has way too many, some of which are way too specific (Rockervoy), or actively grind the game to a halt (Hacker classes always end up taking so much time while everyone else stands with their dick in their hands, and RAW plugging yourself in makes 10 rounds equal 1 round outside).
Basically both sides of the isle have bad stuff and good stuff.
Fricking moronic split. Martials can be magic-users / dabblers too, and we see this in history with the likes of the Templar (fricking demon summoners) and Arabic assassins (sorcery IS associated with assassination and poison and cunning).
Also Odin used a spear for a staff and was as much a god of war as he was a god of wisdom and wizardry.
Based. Odin was also an inspiration for Gandalf, who uses a sword.
Fighting, studying, and stealing are lifestyles too you stupid frick
a thief being criminally-skilled is a lifestyle
Being a thieving shithead is a lifestyle choice too. For that matter, so is spending your life buried in books, learning arcana
>being religious is a lifestyle
So is being a thief. Since when is being good at stealing worthy of being called its own class? If you want a skillful, non-magical class that doesn't rely on force, then call it a rogue or technician. Hell, a fighter can still be a guileful trickster because they don't inherently rely on force. DEX-based fighters and fighters who utilize a broad array of techniques, strategies, and tricks in and out of battle exist.
Filtered.