Wow such a hot topic.
My take is that indeed 2e made fluff matter more. I think that WAS the intent behind using a mechanic (kits) to refluff a class. Since the fluff mattered they couldn't just refluff, they needed kits to do that for them. As for class names? I don't think they were as rigid here. I think it was viewed as metagaming to know yourself on that level. Remember the explanation for why they dropped the assassin as a class in 2e: "That anyone from many different classes could be considered an assassin" / although they added the assassin back in as a kit so that you could refluff a class into an assassin.
As for now and games like Pathfinder? People like to refluff stuff to whatever flavor they want in a class... and as long as it doesn't step on any toes (like behavioral codes or needing to be a member of an organization or even setting standards) I say why not?
they could be third party 2nd edition books for all i know.Could you double-check and post what company did publish the book? I'd be interested in seeing how far the book "experiments" with kits...
unfortunately, when i recieved the book, it was a handme down, the company logo that was supposed to be on the cover isn't there, because the cover didn't last to accomodate 500 pages before i could get it, it had been hit with a hole punch and put into a 3 ring binder with sharpie scribbled on the outside of the binder that read, "the complete book of faeries"
the same sharpie scribbled the words D&D second edition rulebook on the 3 ring binder pseudocover. there is no original cover nor is there a salvageable hint at the company that is neither worn nor smudged beyond readability
i just know it is for second edition, that the formatting is extremely poorly done, that it is typed, that the poor quality paper is yellowed with age, despite being identical to the type of paper used in my handme down 1e PHB and that every rule is extremely experimental.
|
the company logo that was supposed to be on the cover isn't there, because the cover didn't last to accomodate 500 pages before i could get it
Are you sure it was ever a published hardbound book and not just a "netbook" that had been printed out? Netbooks were extremely popular back in 90's, and often featured high page counts...
the company logo that was supposed to be on the cover isn't there, because the cover didn't last to accomodate 500 pages before i could get itAre you sure it was ever a published hardbound book and not just a "netbook" that had been printed out? Netbooks were extremely popular back in 90's, and often featured high page counts...
could have been. that does make sense. could have been a netbook of some guys ever expanding houserules that was printed and copied by kinkos a couple dozen times before i got the hand me down
personally, i would rather reskin a class or race to make it fit the setting, than use reskinning to bring something disruptive. i would rather have somebody reskin their barbarian as a type of samurai for a japan themed game than have somebody put a bunny eared headband on a young female half elf ranger who wears black pajamas and reskins her gladius as a wakazashi in a more western game
while reskinning can disrupt a campaign if done disruptively, it can also be done to mesh a character with the setting and ground the concept based on existing mechanical precedent.
you don't need new mechanics for every concept. instead of creating a new variant for every minor change in career, why don't you just reskin for similar skillsets, the difference between a ninja, a hassansin and a chelexian hellstalker is fairly minimal and techniques from one are applicable to the other two
i see class as a skillset that opens up careers, rather than being the career itself. while a priest could be a cleric, that priest could also be a highly devoted wizard working as a church archivist or a fighter who settled down to be a monk or friar in the western sense rather than the shaolin sense
class isn't the profession itself, it is the training in a skillset that is used to open up doors to professions. this is the biggest mistake 2E made, was selling reskins with 1 or 2 minor changes or producing kits that traded a small amount of things at best
in other words, entering the profession requires a compatible skillset, the class is the compatible skillset that opens up the profession. in fact, tying professions to skill points wasn't a good idea either. how you choose to utilize the skillset or class, also determines your profession as well. meaning, while you have training as a wizard, nothing is binding you to the life of a bookworm, multiclassing or even skill selection could flavor your wizard differently from other wizards
i had a fae blooded wizard of some kind, who wasn't from a major academy and was self taught from a life on the streets, so she picked up a lot of roguish spells and spent her skill points in roguish skills, to represent her street urchin lifestyle in some port town metropolis. she couldn't do most knowledge skills, but had decent spellcraft and linguistics with many roguelike spells and skills, her role to the party was as the rogue, not as your traditional wizard. she didn't throw fireballs or shoot magic missiles, she mage handed coins from peoples purses and used a cantrip to change her hair and eye color for short term escape.
i made a deal with the DM that i would hold on so many of her 1st level spells in her book until she could find a means to learn them and in game exposure to branch out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the opinion on game balance?
It wasn't as mandatory in 2E and is hit or miss in Pathfinder, but one of the major bonuses to reskinning and refluffing something that already exists, is that you already KNOW it works.
I've done both. I've created my own kits and I've just renamed existing ones, but when you create your own kit or archtype... there is a concern about it being overpowered. Or just plain sucking. Things that sound good when your writing them up... just don't work in the actual game.
If you want to rename a barbarian or an elf or a ninja.... you at least have a massive community of players who have actually played the class and you know it works. Or at least it has gone through the hands of people intimately involved with the rules process and they've deemed it 'balanced'...
Sitting down and writing up my own version of the samurai with his zen focus and what not... could be problematic in the long run. I've had a couple homemade kits that I thought were a LITTLE OP in 2E and I've seen others that I KNOW were OP and shifted the balance of the game dangerously...
such is always the issue with house rules.
What's the opinion on game balance?
It wasn't as mandatory in 2E and is hit or miss in Pathfinder, but one of the major bonuses to reskinning and refluffing something that already exists, is that you already KNOW it works.
I've done both. I've created my own kits and I've just renamed existing ones, but when you create your own kit or archtype... there is a concern about it being overpowered. Or just plain sucking. Things that sound good when your writing them up... just don't work in the actual game.
If you want to rename a barbarian or an elf or a ninja.... you at least have a massive community of players who have actually played the class and you know it works. Or at least it has gone through the hands of people intimately involved with the rules process and they've deemed it 'balanced'...
Sitting down and writing up my own version of the samurai with his zen focus and what not... could be problematic in the long run. I've had a couple homemade kits that I thought were a LITTLE OP in 2E and I've seen others that I KNOW were OP and shifted the balance of the game dangerously...
such is always the issue with house rules.
very true, i have a hand me down 2E netbook that is literally loaded with experimental rules and no readable reference to the company that wrote it. it shows the effort people would go through to make an off the wall concept work or to even make something relatively innocent like the spellcloak or urban ranger, which were better thieves than the thief, the urban ranger due to being better in combat and having more options, the spellcloak due to having spells and a heavy focus on intellect and charisma that made strength and dexterity almost useless due to class features that used intelligence or charisma in place of strength or dexterity for a lot of things. at least when you reskin something that has actually been playtested, you know it has actually been playtested and that the mechanics are more likely to be approved than somebody creating a new class that did a lot of the same stuff
i tried for years to replicate the 2E spellcloak as a base class, until i realized, i would be better off making it a bard archetype that gutted away bardic performance to be more of an assassin
OTOH, classes don't actually need to be actual things in the gameworld. They're packages of skills and abilities and don't need a one-to-one correspondence to particular jobs or professions or titles. Especially in a system that allows easy multiclassing, so people can switch classes without any long training or job changes.To each their own. Its a bit of a tangent, but I also restrict certain multiclassing. I don't like the idea that someone can just pick-up wizardy overnight, as an example.
It is assumed that the training is done in the background. It is not overnight. The issue with some people however is there is no way to show the progression to wizard like there would be in a point based system such as shadowrun. So because they can not see the progression they just assume it is instant much like going to sleep and waking up with a new BAB.
It is assumed that the training is done in the background. It is not overnight. The issue with some people however is there is no way to show the progression to wizard like there would be in a point based system such as shadowrun. So because they can not see the progression they just assume it is instant much like going to sleep and waking up with a new BAB.OTOH, classes don't actually need to be actual things in the gameworld. They're packages of skills and abilities and don't need a one-to-one correspondence to particular jobs or professions or titles. Especially in a system that allows easy multiclassing, so people can switch classes without any long training or job changes.To each their own. Its a bit of a tangent, but I also restrict certain multiclassing. I don't like the idea that someone can just pick-up wizardy overnight, as an example.
truesies. the multiclassing overnight, it can be part of the characters backstory, or something they were paying attention to over the course of the adventure and fascinated by. or if it were sorcery, the gene just suddenly kicks in right there,
Well, 3e and 3.5 covered that aspect (I think I quoted them above) but many didn't use those rules for training and declaring.
Hence, there are not rules in regards to that aspect in PF that I recall.
So in reality, RAW it could be that you suddenly wake up one day with all these neat new abilities and powers.
|
|
It is assumed that the training is done in the background. It is not overnight.
The problem with that assumption, is that a few grognards, like myself, run a campaign where there is very little down time, because we tend to play through the parts of the game that most today consider "unfun"; so down time is usually accounted for even if we do not actually role-play through it (e.g. what a character is doing during their watch at night).
It is assumed that the training is done in the background. It is not overnight.The problem with that assumption, is that a few grognards, like myself, run a campaign where there is very little down time, because we tend to play through the parts of the game that most today consider "unfun"; so down time is usually accounted for even if we do not actually role-play through it (e.g. what a character is doing during their watch at night).
The other problem is how 'quickly' you level up. We've had some games where our characters could hole up in a town for the winter and take time off... We've had others that the whole campaign probably took 2 months in game...
Soooo yeah, there really isn't any amount of 'training' or 'declaring' that will make a level 1 apprentice rise to a level 20 archmage in 2 months... and make sense. Spontaneous multi-classing isn't THAT big of a stretch anymore.
There are just some things that do not simulate well in game like this and that's just one of the downfalls of a level based system.
In 2E I used to scoff pretty hard at anyone who wanted to dual-class into a wizard and just 'learn' magic without the years of backstory.... Switching to pathfinder... it's something that I've just had to accept as one of the 'game designs'
Now I have some characters that I've envisioned as a 3 dip class and he doesn't really 'fit his backstory' until level 5 or so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've done both. I've created my own kits and I've just renamed existing ones, but when you create your own kit or archtype... there is a concern about it being overpowered. Or just plain sucking. Things that sound good when your writing them up... just don't work in the actual game.
As I've played through the years I've come to realize that there is no such thing as true game balance, because each player is going to be better or worse at creating their characters, luck enters the equation, etc.
More recently, people seem to describe game balance as equal opportunity. In this mindset, if all players have the same opportunity to create their characters, then its okay if one PC is stronger than the others. This seems to foster a competitive style of play which I dislike.
So when it comes to creating new content, I'm not overly concerned if it is balanced. That's partially due to the fact that all new content enters my game on a probationary term, which the players understand. If something is too good or bad, it will be altered. Lastly, I've always been of the belief that a GM has to take an active hand during the campaign to maintain a sense of balance.
It is assumed that the training is done in the background. It is not overnight. The issue with some people however is there is no way to show the progression to wizard like there would be in a point based system such as shadowrun. So because they can not see the progression they just assume it is instant much like going to sleep and waking up with a new BAB.
And that can work, assuming that the player declares their intent ahead of time, has the opportunity to engage in training in the background, has the resources, etc.
Comparing picking up wizardy to increasing BAB by 1 isn't really valid. Getting a little better at hitting something is easy to justify story-wise. Having a spellbook appear from somewhere, potentially a familiar, and knowledge of spells is more disruptive.
Now I have some characters that I've envisioned as a 3 dip class and he doesn't really 'fit his backstory' until level 5 or so...
It all comes down to preference. To me, if taking levels in a class doesn't fit a character's backstory, then they shouldn't take that class.
I've had characters that started off as one class and then switched to another class, or characters that leveled up two different classes at varying intervals. Those both seemed to make sense with the character's backstory and the campaign story.
But I dislike dipping as it nearly always done to achieve some mechanic, not to reflect something that is going on story-wise.
I'm sure that's due to a combination of my preference of 2e multiclassing, and my viewing most classes as more than simple skill packages.
It is assumed that the training is done in the background. It is not overnight.The problem with that assumption, is that a few grognards, like myself, run a campaign where there is very little down time, because we tend to play through the parts of the game that most today consider "unfun"; so down time is usually accounted for even if we do not actually role-play through it (e.g. what a character is doing during their watch at night).
You haven't stated whether your adventurers can become trained during your defined downtime or not. If there isn't enough time, it can only mean that you the GM are not allowing your players to have the time available, which is your fault (and your grognard ways.) I assume this is not the case and that your PCs can train during this downtime.
|
|
I assume this is not the case and that your PCs can train during this downtime.
I've stated in an earlier how I handle training, which cannot be done while adventuring, even if the player(s) opt to self-train.
This time can be done in the background (and occasionally it is when nothing else needs to be taken care of during this time), but since it takes up so much of the characters time, we sometimes role-play the other stuff that the character(s) need to take care while they are not adventuring (as the majority of the time, training happens in a city or town)...
Not that I'd done so often, but I can remember a 2e game's experiment, where I had a given PC that was earning a new feat at the next level, so that PC tried to do what the upcoming ability would allow him to do, but failing, as a means to emulate training in that new skill. In cases where practicing the new skill/feat was less feasible, each player would take an hour each evening or morning when casters are studying for their daily spells, and train themselves. This way training occurs concurrently with active adventuring, without the need for downtime between adventures. Training occurs while adventuring - this makes more sense to me and fit my many time sensitive missions I provide my table.
|
|
If you're already forcing characters to spend weeks training for levels (and doing so in 2E where characters will level at different times and rates, which makes it even more disruptive), you've already pretty much given up on any long term time sensitive plots
Not really, because without giving vast amounts of story awards (in the form of XP) and individual XP awards, it takes longer to level up in 2nd edition than it does in 3rd edition and Pathfinder (even at the lower levels). So time-sensitive plots are not off the table (in fact, many of the 2nd edition modules had time-sensitive plots).
so why not just allow more time for training to another class? Since multiclassing in the 3.x sense doesn't exist in 2E, that doesn't strictly apply, but conceptually I don't see much problem
I suppose that I would be open to say, doubling the time required to self-train while adventuring (using the rules I stated in that prior post).
I don't recall that dual-classing in 2E took extra training time. You were limited in what you could use from your old class until you caught up and there were limits on how often you could do it, IIRC, but it didn't take longer to pick up that first level of wizard.
There isn't (and wasn't back in the day) a whole lot of dual classing going on because of the high requirements:
To be dual-classed, the character must have scores of 15 or more in the prime requisites of his first class and scores of 17 or more in the prime requisites of any classes he switches to.
That being said, when it does happen, I require the character to first find someone in the new class to train him, and then use the training rules as if the character were gaining a new level.
I never played with the training rules. We liked epic quests even back then and the idea of continually stopping for weeks to train just ruined that for us.
This shouldn't surprise anyone here, but I used the training rules back in 1st edition as well, and it did not stop us from playing epic, time-sensitive quests (most of the modules that came out in the last few years of 1st edition had time-sensitive quests), but like 2nd edition, leveling up took longer than it does for 3rd edition and Pathfinder (unless you gave out XP differently than what the books suggest)...
for leveling to be slower in 1.e or 2.e. you would have to either ration the amount of gold pieces you give, or remove the 1 XP per 1 GP found adventuring rule. most published 1e and 2e adventures are loaded with gold coins and magic items. and that is generally why characters blazed through the levels on published modules. if you were homebrewing, then yes, you could tightly ration the rewards, but playing either with the modules as written, expect to gain 2-3 levels in 20-24 hours of real life playtime.
|
|
I believe and a quick check seems to confirm, that the xp=gp rule was removed in 2e. Nothing else seemed to change to compensate for this, including module design.
There was an optional 1gp -> 2xp rule for individual xp for thieves. When we used that it was always only for treasure beyond the character's normal share, which the rest of the party discouraged taking.:)
The 1 XP for 1 GP rule is in 2nd edition, it's just buried in the DMG.
And the 1 GP for 2 XP for rogues is not specifically labeled in the Player's Handbook as being optional (I know all rules are "optional" in any game system, but 2nd edition specifically had rules that the books themselves labeled as being purely optional, and this rule was not one of them).
|
|
for leveling to be slower in 1.e or 2.e. you would have to either ration the amount of gold pieces you give, or remove the 1 XP per 1 GP found adventuring rule.
Gold for XP in 2nd edition is specifically labeled in the 2nd edition DMG as an "optional rule". And 2nd edition does not give XP for finding magical items; the XP listed in the DMG is for creating the item, not finding it.
However, I do make use of the optional gold for XP rule in my games, but 2nd edition modules are not as "bad" with handing out vast quantities of gold as 1st edition modules tended to be.
In my games, I use a combination of modules, and my own adventures, so it pretty much evens itself out...
|
|
I'm not sure how many levels would be gained in the Giants/Drow series for example
I've not run into a problem with modules like this (e.g. the 14 Dragonlance modules, and others, including quite a few 2nd edition titles that spanned multiple modules) getting in the way of character's training. In fact, the 1st edition modules like this with stories that spanned multiple modules (e.g. Temple of Elemental Evil, the Dragonlance saga, Aerie of the Slave Lords, etc.) were written with training rules in mind, as unlike 2nd edition, training wasn't an optional rule as per the RAW...
I've done both. I've created my own kits and I've just renamed existing ones, but when you create your own kit or archtype... there is a concern about it being overpowered. Or just plain sucking. Things that sound good when your writing them up... just don't work in the actual game.As I've played through the years I've come to realize that there is no such thing as true game balance, because each player is going to be better or worse at creating their characters, luck enters the equation, etc.
More recently, people seem to describe game balance as equal opportunity. In this mindset, if all players have the same opportunity to create their characters, then its okay if one PC is stronger than the others. This seems to foster a competitive style of play which I dislike.
So when it comes to creating new content, I'm not overly concerned if it is balanced. That's partially due to the fact that all new content enters my game on a probationary term, which the players understand. If something is too good or bad, it will be altered. Lastly, I've always been of the belief that a GM has to take an active hand during the campaign to maintain a sense of balance.
It is assumed that the training is done in the background. It is not overnight. The issue with some people however is there is no way to show the progression to wizard like there would be in a point based system such as shadowrun. So because they can not see the progression they just assume it is instant much like going to sleep and waking up with a new BAB.And that can work, assuming that the player declares their intent ahead of time, has the opportunity to engage in training in the background, has the resources, etc.
Comparing picking up wizardy to increasing BAB by 1 isn't really valid. Getting a little better at hitting something is easy to justify story-wise. Having a spellbook appear from somewhere, potentially a familiar, and knowledge of spells is more disruptive....
Whether you gain BAB or a wizard level both are silly as an overnight gain. At no point did I say gaining a class level was equal to BAB. If that is what you got out of my post then you missed the point.
So the commoner ends up with slightly better saves, hp, decent skill points
8 + 2*Int is "decent"? That's better than the rogue's! And how are those "slightly" better saves? 7/3/3 versus 6/6/6? Unless we're worried about summoning Asmodeus, I'll take the latter any day. That's the option that saves me from being mind controlled to gank the cleric. I may have around double the fighter's HP (60 vs. 70, and then we throw in twice the Con/Toughness/FCB modifiers and twice the ability score increases and it can get pretty damn impressive), but I still need that cleric.
I made a post, but it was eaten.
Short version: If you don't have time to train then you don't have time to train. I can understand not being able to train if nobody is around to teach you and/or if your class and the class you want to multiclass into is very far apart with how they work. However if a fellow player is a (class you want to multiclass into or close to it) then you can train with them, and learn the class that way.
Now if you(general statement) as a GM are just making training time unavailable because you don't like the idea of multiclassing as opposed to learning the class "over night" then just tell the player up front that you don't like it, instead of hiding behind the rule.
PS: I only brought up hiding behind the rules because I see it online at times. GM says X is too powerful because ____. It is shown that his idea of the rules is incorrect. Then he just says "well I dont like it so I wont allow it". Since he is the GM that is all he had to say anyway.
|
|
However if a fellow player is a (class you want to multiclass into or close to it) then you can train with them, and learn the class that way.
For me and the games I run, because of the edition I play, that is not always an option:
Since not all characters are suited to instructing others, any player character who attempts to train another must make both a Wisdom check and a Charisma check. If the Wisdom check is passed, the player character possesses the patience and insight to nurture the student. If the Charisma check is passed, the character also has the wit, firmness, and authority needed to impress the lessons on the student. If either check is failed, that character is close, but just not a teacher. If both checks are failed, the character has absolutely no aptitude for teaching. Alternatively, the DM can dispense with the die rolls and rule for each player character, based on his knowledge of that character's personality. It is assumed that all NPC tutors have successfully passed these checks.
Contributor
|
Question for Digitalelf (not meant sarcastically in any way): why isn't it an option? Doesn't your position as the DM allow you to use Rule 0 to adjust any rules to suit your group? My experiences with 2nd Edition were different, I suppose, but I've never seen anyone else so devoted to following every rule to the letter in any edition. Plus, even in the example you cited, it does give the option for the DM to waive that requirement (which I assume is what you referred to with "not always"). Is there a reason that you treat seemingly all rules, even those that many groups miss/ignore/replace, as sacred cows? Please do not misinterpret my tone as hostile; I am simply trying to understand your way of playing better.
|
|
Question for Digitalelf: why isn't it an option? Doesn't your position as the DM allow you to use Rule 0 to adjust any rules to suit your group?
Yes, thejeff pretty much has it right. 2nd edition has a lot of rules specifically labeled as "optional", and I have chosen which "options" I prefer. I do house-rule some, but for the most part, I like to play the game pretty close to the RAW (and this is true of whatever game system or edition I am playing).
My reference to "not always" is mostly because I tend to let the dice decide whether or not a PC can train someone, but if a character has a fairly strong personality, I will sometimes just rule that character is able to train someone else.
Why are you using training rules at all? It just adds more work to the GM by forcing you to artificially break up adventures into mini "one level" ones with suitable breaks in between for training while at the same time annoying the players who now have to search high and low for suitable trainers instead of just advancing once they have earned it.
The only benefit I see is for passive aggressive GM styles who want to limit the players choices without coming right out and telling them. For example; a player is building toward arcane archery PrC but the GM doesn't like that so instead of just saying "no" he just has no trainers available so that the player is forced to either advance a different class or fall behind the other players. Since in 3e to PF it pays dividends to preplan your build this can only end in an unpleasant experience for everyone. I highly suspect this IS why the developers removed any training rules for 3e and onward.
Now even in 2e training rules when used were a hassle. While they weren't as big an issue for class builds they still forced you to artificially break up the action into one level bits... which was further complicated by classes leveling at different times such that there was almost always someone needing to head back to town in the middle of the action. This might also be why they unified the XP tables into one.
I know "real lifers" love their realism, but it shouldn't come at the expense of fun. Don't you agree?
I see what your saying thejeff, and I will grant you that the most friendly environment for training rules IS sandbox games. But they are often a hassle even there when 'Pete' wants to level up before a big fight while 'Jesse' wants to get it over with. And you don't actually NEED training rules to have good interactions with NPCs. I was in a group that once played three whole sessions simply interacting with vendors and sponsors during a resupply trip before the actual adventure started.
it seems contradictory for the game to be meant for any number of settings and uses and then turn around and lock classes to specific concepts (and encourage locking classes to concepts).Many times when a new setting was released, and it was different from the standard fare, it had entirely new character classes that were suited to the new setting better than the standard classes were. There are many examples of this: Dark Sun had Preservers and Defilers instead of the standard Mage and Specialist Wizard, Dark Sun also had the Gladiator as another Warrior type (but did not have Paladins), Dragonlance had the Knights of Solamnia instead of Paladins, and also had the Wizard's of High Sorcery with alignment dictating what spells you could cast without consequence.
So, no, I don't think it really was contradictory to lock classes to specific concepts, when it was so easy to just follow TSR's model, and make a new class with your own concept if you just cannot make one of the pre-existing classes fit that concept...
"Dwarves are typically fighters, in every nation, on every world, in every setting, without exception, ever, ever, ever, ever (unless you go out of your way to specify otherwise)."
"Rangers never congregate in groups of more than three, in ever nation, on every world, across the entirety of all the places you can imagine, ever, ever, ever. This is the true default that all multiverses adhere to, unless you actually spell out that this isn't the case."
"All people of a barbaric nature can avoid traps with ease and loose their emotions for great physical gain, and all people who can find traps and briefly augment their physical abilities must be barbarians. Everywhere. Ever."
To me, all of those statements are just as nonsensical as "Storm and Thor are evil because they use Lightning because Emperor Palpatine is evil and just so happens to use Lightning."
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about a specific setting. I'm not talking about a game system devoted to one setting. Star Wars Saga Edition says that the use of Lightning is a Dark Side act. I might lament that it cuts out a number of cool-looking heroic characters, but there's nothing contradictory about a game system, devoted to one setting, having rules that support that setting, and hang what those rules might mean for other settings that SWSE isn't even written for.
The Conan RPG actually has a Pirate class. That's what the writers of that RPG chose to do to express that profession in that system for that setting. Does it quite work if you're trying to create a distinction between pirates of different skills, as would be expressed by a Pirate-archetype Fighter versus a Pirate-archetype Rogue? Not necessarily, but the onus isn't on Conan RPG to handle other settings.
Decipher's Star Trek RPG has a class for starship captains. It has a number of abilities that express the Captain's ability to realize a solution from out of the blue, to keep a level head, to command others and push them past their limits. And you can only take levels in this class if your character has been to some kind of in-universe institution for teaching these skills, such as the Klingon Command Academy or Starfleet Academy. It's entirely inappropriate to make the assumption that those skills can only come from a source like that across the entirety of human imagination. The Star Trek RPG does not, however, make that assumption.
That's where I'm coming from when I say I think 2E's left hand didn't know what its right hand was doing when it was being written. Which isn't to say it's unique to 2E. In 3E, Pathfinder, and even 4E, they wrote a game meant for any setting, and yet, you have a default list of deities. 5E was the first version that got that particular detail right. "Here are the domains. Here are several lists of pantheons from both the real world and settings within this game, and here's how those domains apply to those pantheons. Use whatever applies, which is not the Greyhawk list, or the Golarion list, or the Dawn War deities list by default.
So what do you mean by re-flavoring or re-skinning? ...what would you consider unacceptable reskinning?As for the second part of your question...
Unacceptable might be too strong of a word, because it is more of a choice of play-style than anything else. But when I talk about not allowing the re-skinning of a class in my games, I mean completely dropping the flavor (or fluff if you will) of a class and using nothing but the mechanics to make it something entirely different than what it was before you started; such as Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider's example a few posts up of taking the Barbarian class, and stripping away all of the flavor, and using just the mechanics of the Barbarian class to make an entirely new class (and in the example used, it was a "samurai class" that was created).
I personally just do not like viewing classes as tool-sets like that; character classes mean so much more to me...
Yeah, but classes are written by falliable people that think they have a concept and have written a decent games-mechanics manifestation of that concept, and it's really a crapshoot if they get it right. Sometimes they write a fluff description of a highly-trained ascetic, competent in the martial arts and capable of utilizing his ki to great effect. That doesn't mean they got the mechanics right.
Sometimes they write a brilliant set of mechanics that perfectly describe what a Samurai can do. He can get around the battlefield quickly despite his armor. His reactions are so honed and he is so versed in the ways of honor that he can even sense when others are not, such as when someone is trying to stab him in the back or when he's confronted by ambushes and traps. The Samurai is also mentally disciplined and can take his emotions and, where others might get mad but not get anything out of it, he can physically augment himself and become a titan in battle.
And then they go and call this a Barbarian instead.
Classes are fluff and crunch, mixed with mixed levels of success. Sometimes the fluff is right and the mechanics don't back it up. Sometimes the crunch is right and the fluff has been misapplied. And sometimes the crunch is right and the fluff is right, but only for a certain kind of setting that might not apply to where the group is playing.
So I have trouble seeing classes as anything sacred or precious. They're riddled with mistakes. One might have a set of fluff that would be better applied to another class or a tweaked or completely rewritten version of itself. But in order to do that, you have to first divorce the fluff from its existing crunch. Which, to me, is about as lamentable as the fact that you have to break open an egg in order to fry it, i.e., not at all.
|
|
Why are you using training rules at all? It just adds more work to the GM by forcing you to artificially break up adventures into mini "one level" ones with suitable breaks in between for training while at the same time annoying the players who now have to search high and low for suitable trainers instead of just advancing once they have earned it.
The only benefit I see is for passive aggressive GM styles who want to limit the players choices without coming right out and telling them.
I've said numerous times in this thread, I don't have a a problem with the rules of 2nd edition as they are written, and I have not had any players who thought I was "punishing" them or limiting their choices by using those rules.
Now even in 2e training rules when used were a hassle. While they weren't as big an issue for class builds they still forced you to artificially break up the action into one level bits... which was further complicated by classes leveling at different times such that there was almost always someone needing to head back to town in the middle of the action. This might also be why they unified the XP tables into one.
Again, I don't think of it as a hassle, I even addressed training times and adventures in another post a page back
I know "real lifers" love their realism, but it shouldn't come at the expense of fun. Don't you agree?
But who's fun? Because it's certainly not at my expense or that of the various players I've had over the past three decades. I didn't decide just to go back to using 2nd edition in a vacuum... My current group of players was right there with me in that decision.
I see what your saying thejeff, and I will grant you that the most friendly environment for training rules IS sandbox games. But they are often a hassle even there when 'Pete' wants to level up before a big fight while 'Jesse' wants to get it over with. And you don't actually NEED training rules to have good interactions with NPCs. I was in a group that once played three whole sessions simply interacting with vendors and sponsors during a resupply trip before the actual adventure started.Obviously you don't need them. Anymore than you need shopping trips to interact with NPCs.
It's another opportunity to introduce them, that's all.
Fair enough. I thought you were expressing a need for the roleplay tool as a defense of training, clearly that isn't the case. I stand corrected.
Why are you using training rules at all? It just adds more work to the GM by forcing you to artificially break up adventures into mini "one level" ones with suitable breaks in between for training while at the same time annoying the players who now have to search high and low for suitable trainers instead of just advancing once they have earned it.
The only benefit I see is for passive aggressive GM styles who want to limit the players choices without coming right out and telling them.
I think you're interposing your views of the rules for training onto myself and the players at my table. As I've said numerous times in this thread, I don't have a a problem with the rules of 2nd edition as they are written, and I have not had any players who thought I was "punishing" them or limiting their choices by using those rules.
Now even in 2e training rules when used were a hassle. While they weren't as big an issue for class builds they still forced you to artificially break up the action into one level bits... which was further complicated by classes leveling at different times such that there was almost always someone needing to head back to town in the middle of the action. This might also be why they unified the XP tables into one.Again, I don't think of it as a hassle, I even addressed training times and adventures in another post a page back
I know "real lifers" love their realism, but it shouldn't come at the expense of fun. Don't you agree?But who's fun? Because it's certainly not at my expense or that of the various players I've had over the past three decades. I didn't decide just to go back to using 2nd edition in a vacuum... My current group of players was right there with me in that decision.
I wasn't specifically addressing your particular table, there are exceptions to everything in life. But instead I was using your platform as a spring board to show the issues with training and how it can get in the way of many play styles fun. I hope you didn't see it as an attack on your style. If you got it to work for your group then the best I can offer your case is to just try a campaign without training times once and see if your players like it better. You never really know as a GM if your players love your style of GMing or if they just love YOU. And if it's the later they may well just be ignoring any annoyance over training because they want YOU in the GM seat. YOU let them have fun despite any minor issues they might have over play pacing. If it's the former and they love training then I would be honestly surprised. But I have no right to judge what they find fun, even if it would annoy most people I have played with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope you didn't see it as an attack on your style.
No, I didn't see it as an attack, that's actually part of the reason why I changed my post before you responded.
And as for trying a game with no training, I did attempt it during 3rd edition, and my players wanted to go back to required training because they felt it broke their suspension of disbelief when they did not have to train (either to gain a new level, or to gain a new class)...
I hope you didn't see it as an attack on your style.No, I didn't see it as an attack, that's actually part of the reason why I changed my post before you responded.
And as for trying a game with no training, I did attempt it during 3rd edition, and my players wanted to go back to required training because they felt it broke their suspension of disbelief when they did not have to train (either to gain a new level, or to gain a new class)...
Well then in your case it's best to keep the training rules then. If your players prefer it and clearly your already used to breaking up the adventure for training time... It's always best to please your players especially when it doesn't make any extra effort for you (since you were already doing the extra effort anyway).
Just think of my post as a warning for newer players then.
Lol, I hope Umbranus is not that pissed. Anyway this makes titan fighter and titan mauler a really good combination, actually it repairs the archettypeWell, for those who said they would throw up their arms, and quit, if they allowed larger weapons to be wielded, the Giant Hunter's Handbook is out.
I give you, the Titan Fighter:
Sorry to see you go...Titan fighters make use of enormous weapons others can
barely lift. Titan fighters have the following class features.
Giant Weapon Wielder (Ex): At 1st level, a titan fighter can wield two-handed melee weapons intended for creatures one size category larger than himself, treating them as two-handed weapons. He takes an additional –2 penalty on attack rolls when using an oversized two-handed weapon. This ability replaces the fighter’s 1st level bonus feat.
While the lol in your posting doesn't sound like you are really interested but it seems the last posting Umbranus made was Dec 5, 2014, 11:09 PM, before you made the posting I just quoted. Whether it was the giant hunter's handbook or BBT's comment that really made him leave this board I cant tell.
I see what your saying thejeff, and I will grant you that the most friendly environment for training rules IS sandbox games. But they are often a hassle even there when 'Pete' wants to level up before a big fight while 'Jesse' wants to get it over with. And you don't actually NEED training rules to have good interactions with NPCs. I was in a group that once played three whole sessions simply interacting with vendors and sponsors during a resupply trip before the actual adventure started.
I could not have done it. I don't mind RP'ing, and planning, but it should not take 3 sessions. It should not even take one full session, but some people do like to play like that.
I am the "get it over with" guy. I feel the same way about shopping for magic items. If a GM tries to have a shopkeeper haggle with me about the price I tend to just pay them to get it out of the way.
I see what your saying thejeff, and I will grant you that the most friendly environment for training rules IS sandbox games. But they are often a hassle even there when 'Pete' wants to level up before a big fight while 'Jesse' wants to get it over with. And you don't actually NEED training rules to have good interactions with NPCs. I was in a group that once played three whole sessions simply interacting with vendors and sponsors during a resupply trip before the actual adventure started.
I could not have done it. I don't mind RP'ing, and planning, but it should not take 3 sessions. It should not even take one full session, but some people do like to play like that.
I am the "get it over with" guy. I feel the same way about shopping for magic items. If a GM tries to have a shopkeeper haggle with me about the price I tend to just pay them to get it out of the way.
Actually that group met weekly for 12 hour sessions... so that was like 36 hours of pure role play. And it was amazingly fun. But to be honest even we were ready to kill stuff on the fourth session. And the GM was happy to send plenty of robots and dinosaurs to battle us. Normally we got our role play mixed with battle over the session or in one full session but we were SO into the role play that time that none of us could stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope you didn't see it as an attack on your style.No, I didn't see it as an attack, that's actually part of the reason why I changed my post before you responded.
And as for trying a game with no training, I did attempt it during 3rd edition, and my players wanted to go back to required training because they felt it broke their suspension of disbelief when they did not have to train (either to gain a new level, or to gain a new class)...
I've only played in one game that used training, and for us it was the exact opposite. It was 2E 'sandbox' boxed set. Can't recall which one it was, but it started with someone's daughter being kidnapped then we spent the rest of the game following clues and such to eventually deep underground...
We never finished it, but we tried the training rules and they caused a lot of trouble.
1)everyone leveled at different times in 2E, so it felt like we were ALWAYS stopping so someone could train.
2) training trivialized experience. In my opinion, actually DOING stuff to EARN xp should have counted toward training. The idea that we just spent 3 days killing a hundred goblins or orc. Swinging that sword for hours hip deep in blood and sweat... did nothing for us, but spending a couple days or a week bouncing it off some trainers shield suddenly dropped my thac0 by one... I had a REALLY hard time seeing that.
3) Our biggest issue though, was it kept interrupting the flow of the game. The DM basically told us, that we need to be a higher level before venturing on in the quest... so we stopped to train. Meanwhile, SOMEHOW, our good clerics and Paladins have to explain in-game why they took a week or two off and just let the kidnapped victim get further away.
In game, it had been MONTHS since the girl was kidnapped and drug underground but for some reason we were still looking. I remember when my dwarf cleric just stopped everyone and said "Ok guys... You realize that theres been no word... no ransom... and clues in three months right? That girls dead now. If you still want to track them down and avenge her... I'm in. But this ain't a rescue anymore..."
In my opinion the training broke more Suspension of Disbelief than instant leveling ever did. Kingmaker that we're running right now? We could probably make it work. But if there is a quest that my choices are 1) put on hold till I metagame leveling up, or 2) go in underpowered since I've earned the xp.... Those kinds of decisions make me a bit twitchy ;)
Waiting for pizza delivery at the FLGS and lurking through the threads, saw this, and so I'm posing questions to the Grognards here and getting their input.
...<snip> 1)everyone leveled at different times in 2E, so it felt like we were ALWAYS stopping so someone could train...<snip>Answer:
Experience Points weren't handed out until a rest-and-training period came up. So while PCs may level at different rates it didn't come up in the course of the adventure proper. And disparate PC levels were not such a problem under 1E/2E rules. Adventure modules were for X-PC-levels total; not four PCs of x-level. Seems more sandboxy and with a good DM that should work fine.To me, this seems like more of a problem for 3.PF type games.
Most people I know handed out the xp at the end of the night. Otherwise if you're playing every 2 weeks, or some games longer, things get forgotten or worse, you have no feel of progression at all.
Between some of the classes there were pretty big differences in levels. ESPECIALLY if you broke out the book of humanoids or were playing a race that needed double xp or something crazy like that. If you have a rogue in the group with a paladin or druid? SOMEbody is getting screwed over if there are no xp/leveling until everyone is ready.
That was one of the changes that I did like in Pathfinders. Everyone has the same goals for leveling and everyone could take the same time off to train if they wanted...