1e Unearthed Arcana was a big load of pasta alfredo that gave you a 90% blockage in your LAD of cheese. Totally different book.
was it really that overloaded with cheese?
i think back then that everyone played fighters, am i right? and was the cleric role assigned by drawing straws?It depended....a lot of times the cleric was some fine blonde n.p.c. with hair like Heather Locklear or whoever was in Playboy that month that everybody wanted to boff.
so your clerics were pure fanservice? what did they wear?
|
1e Unearthed Arcana was a big load of pasta alfredo that gave you a 90% blockage in your LAD of cheese. Totally different book.was it really that overloaded with cheese?
IDK; I killed 4 trolls at first level with a cavalier though. It was a Dragon magazine cavalier, I think they tried to smooth it out in the UA, but it was pretty bodacious.
I think you could get damn plate mail and some kinda warhorse at first level.My Dragon mag cavalier rolled like lower middle class for his "social status" so he had field plate (one better than plate mail but one less than plate) and a heavy warhorse, which meant he could charge for 3d6 in damage or something.
|
|
so your clerics were pure fanservice?i think back then that everyone played fighters, am i right? and was the cleric role assigned by drawing straws?It depended....a lot of times the cleric was some fine blonde n.p.c. with hair like Heather Locklear or whoever was in Playboy that month that everybody wanted to boff.
We were thirteen, man. Don't hold me to all of this; I think Reagan was president, and the idea of the Berlin wall coming down was f!~%ing crazy talk. It was a long time ago.
We were thirteen, man.so your clerics were pure fanservice?i think back then that everyone played fighters, am i right? and was the cleric role assigned by drawing straws?It depended....a lot of times the cleric was some fine blonde n.p.c. with hair like Heather Locklear or whoever was in Playboy that month that everybody wanted to boff.
what did they wear? what were thier builds (appearance)?
|
|
A 1e cleric had at least a 15 charisma, until they came out with the "comeliness" stat in the UA....then you could let the charisma suffer a bit. I guess she'd be kinda like Fran Drescher.....kinda hot with a really nasal voice or something.
Clerics had to have a minimum of 9 wisdom, and pretty much six in everything else except dex and con, which they could have a three.
NPC blonde hottie clerics, however, had to have a minimum 15 charisma.
Clerics were the weakest and most boring class in 1e. No one wanted to play them, period. So, yeah, the most common conversation when trying to find a game:
Prospective player: "you guys have a spot at the table?"
Group: "yeah, we need a cleric."
Prospective player: "Damn."
A 1e cleric had at least a 15 charisma, until they came out with the "comeliness" stat in the UA....then you could let the charisma suffer a bit. I guess she'd be kinda like Fran Drescher.....kinda hot with a really nasal voice or something.
my rogues are typcially 12ish year old japanese girls, however thier purpose is not fanservice, but to crawl through vents, hide behind tables, perform stage magic, and pull of impossibile acrobatics, whilst wearing a black kimono. it's a petite build that makes these functions easier. most of them dumped charisma, unless it was a class primary.
my clerics are basically tiny cute fencing "angels" with healing powers.
|
|
1e Unearthed Arcana was a big load of pasta alfredo that gave you a 90% blockage in your LAD of cheese. Totally different book.was it really that overloaded with cheese?
Put it this way, after they introduced Barbarians, Cavaliers, made Paladins a sub-class of cavalier, and came up with weapon specialization and weapons of choice, red dragons went from tough encounters to speed bumps.
And don't get me started on drow as pcs...
I think all women back then had to have a 15 cha. You'd kinda fudge it so they could have a decent dex; that way they wouldn't have to wear much more than leather armor.
why did women need so much charisma? it seems unneccessary
|
|
I didn't know that (about the origin of splatbook - I have yet to meet a Vampire player I can stand to be around for more than three minutes, so I know jack all about WW products or terms).
The problem is, though, yes, quite a few people are desiring a full BAB/9 level spell progression class with no spell failure armor penalty. Otherwise, it would be quite easy to repurpose the bard chassis and get something serviceable.
Please tell me you're getting the joke...I think all women back then had to have a 15 cha. You'd kinda fudge it so they could have a decent dex; that way they wouldn't have to wear much more than leather armor.why did women need so much charisma? it seems unneccessary
ha ha ha, fanservice!
how often did your players attend brothels?
a lot of my women were overly abstinent/celibate. some may have been "Teases" due to the fact the were female. but they never actively teased. it was more of a passive change clothes after crossing through a waterfall kinda thing.
|
|
And now we're getting into debatable, floaty stuff for a system that wasn't very well-balanced to begin with.
Funny, for a game that wasn't "balanced", fighters didn't suck at all vis a vis magic users in 1e compared to their counterparts in 3x.
It still amazes me that for all the talk of how much better the games are now, the hobby, sales volume-wise is a shadow of what it was in 1983...
|
|
Please tell me you're getting the joke...I think all women back then had to have a 15 cha. You'd kinda fudge it so they could have a decent dex; that way they wouldn't have to wear much more than leather armor.why did women need so much charisma? it seems unneccessaryha ha ha, fanservice!
how often did your players attend brothels?
Well, considering we were all Conan fans, quite a bit....
|
|
And now we're getting into debatable, floaty stuff for a system that wasn't very well-balanced to begin with.Funny, for a game that wasn't "balanced", fighters didn't suck at all vis a vis magic users in 1e compared to their counterparts in 3x.
It still amazes me that for all the talk of how much better the games are now, the hobby, sales volume-wise is a shadow of what it was in 1983...
The didn't have WoW back then.....;)
|
|
he problem is, though, yes, quite a few people are desiring a full BAB/9 level spell progression class with no spell failure armor penalty. Otherwise, it would be quite easy to repurpose the bard chassis and get something serviceable.Well, you could do that. In fact, that's basically the 3.5 cleric.
And the 3.5 cleric (and, may as well throw druid in the mix) completely outshines the fighter by level 12. Which runs counter to a stated design goal: niche protection.
If you subscribe to that tier stuff, anyway.
Bad example.
Well, considering we were all Conan fans, quite a bit....Please tell me you're getting the joke...I think all women back then had to have a 15 cha. You'd kinda fudge it so they could have a decent dex; that way they wouldn't have to wear much more than leather armor.why did women need so much charisma? it seems unneccessaryha ha ha, fanservice!
how often did your players attend brothels?
my female characters changed thier clothes in situations were it couldn't be glossed. such as passing through a waterfall. ususally they kept extra of the same outift. that was the most "Teasing" they did. when they changed in such situations, they did it around the other women, or the men with certain vows. i leave it to everyone else imagination. though my characters are so young it makes fantasizing difficult. which is good for me and the group. it gives them women they won't violate. most of the time it was handwaved.
Back then, I'd heard of ACTUAL women who'd played; I think Dr. Joyce Brothers and Andre Norton played with Gary Gygax. We weren't certain that these stories were true though.
those stories are indeed true. women do play. it's just not common.
|
|
Back then, I'd heard of ACTUAL women who'd played; I think Dr. Joyce Brothers and Andre Norton played with Gary Gygax. We weren't certain that these stories were true though.
We had women in my games. But then, I had also already started down the path that lead to my eventual "vacation", so, you know...
|
|
And the 3.5 cleric (and, may as well throw druid in the mix) completely outshines the fighter by level 12. Which runs counter to a stated design goal: niche protection.
If you subscribe to that tier stuff, anyway.
I assume we're not taking the 3.5 fighter as a baseline of power? Because all sorts of bad things happen to 3e when you do that, especially since the monster books aren't using the 3.5 fighter as the baseline of power.
The 3.5 cleric wasn't that bad if you only cast Divine Power. On a limited basis, he could put his game face on and hang with the real melee. In fact, even the PF cleric can still do that with PF Divine Power; all it loses is weak iterative attacks. In 3.5, it was Divine Power plus all the other crazy crap that stacked. (Let's not discuss the 3.5 druid too much; wild shape was crazy town and after level 8 it overshadowed everyone.)
In fact, this is the risk of a class with a long spell list with buffs hidden in it. It's hard to tell how good the class really is.
That's why I think hanging the concept on a bard chassis would be safer, less intrusive on other niches, and more munchkin-proof.
Back then, I'd heard of ACTUAL women who'd played; I think Dr. Joyce Brothers and Andre Norton played with Gary Gygax. We weren't certain that these stories were true though.We had women in my games. But then, I had also already started down the path that lead to my eventual "vacation", so, you know...
how many female adventurers keep 10-15 of the same outfit in thier bag, assuming strength is thier dump stat, without it affecting encumbrance? especially if it is something outrageously hard to find, like a solid black yukata, or a "Lolitafied" angel's robe.
I have no idea what this means.how many 12 year old tian girls carry 10-15 black yukatas in thier bag? not counting other adventuring gear. without encumbrance.
but how many chelexian aasimaar priestesses do the same overloading with white frilly, lace trimmed robes?
my female pcs, especially the ones with impossibly hard to find outfits loaded extra on thier attire. especially if it was a difficult to aqcuire robe or dress, even more so if it was thier starting outfit. they had distinct garments they wore at all times and couldn't be denied them. the more intricate the outfit, the more copies.
but it's just nonsense. women with that many copies of the same regionally innapropriate outfit.
|
|
my female pcs, especially the ones with impossibly hard to find outfits loaded extra on thier attire. especially if it was a difficult to aqcuire robe or dress, even more so if it was thier starting outfit. they had distinct garments they wore at all times and couldn't be denied them. the more intricate the outfit, the more copies.I have no idea what this means.how many 12 year old tian girls carry 10-15 black yukatas in thier bag? not counting other adventuring gear. without encumbrance.
but how many chelexian aasimaar priestesses do the same overloading with white frilly, lace trimmed robes?
I meant in relation to what Heathy and I were talking about. I got the character concept part ;)
I meant in relation to what Heathy and I were talking about. I got the character concept part ;)my female pcs, especially the ones with impossibly hard to find outfits loaded extra on thier attire. especially if it was a difficult to aqcuire robe or dress, even more so if it was thier starting outfit. they had distinct garments they wore at all times and couldn't be denied them. the more intricate the outfit, the more copies.I have no idea what this means.how many 12 year old tian girls carry 10-15 black yukatas in thier bag? not counting other adventuring gear. without encumbrance.
but how many chelexian aasimaar priestesses do the same overloading with white frilly, lace trimmed robes?
it involves the female characters, and strange things. i guess you changed topics? sorry if i got carried away on my own female characters.
isn't it easier for an artist to draw a character if they wear the same attire nonstop? doesn't it save the writer description time?
|
|
it involves the female characters, and strange things. i guess you changed topics? sorry if i got carried away on my own female characters.I meant in relation to what Heathy and I were talking about. I got the character concept part ;)my female pcs, especially the ones with impossibly hard to find outfits loaded extra on thier attire. especially if it was a difficult to aqcuire robe or dress, even more so if it was thier starting outfit. they had distinct garments they wore at all times and couldn't be denied them. the more intricate the outfit, the more copies.I have no idea what this means.how many 12 year old tian girls carry 10-15 black yukatas in thier bag? not counting other adventuring gear. without encumbrance.
but how many chelexian aasimaar priestesses do the same overloading with white frilly, lace trimmed robes?
No worries. We were just kind of reminiscing about the old days and the scarcity of female gamers back then.
i guess everybody has thier own ideas about how thier female characters function. mine were asthetic, as it is easier for me to visualize a female than a male, especially when it comes to rogues and casters. males are easier for tanks. it saves the writer description time if their character always dresses the same? right?
my women didn't always have high charisma, but they had a minimum of average (10).
Anyway...
Help me please:
There are people who desperately need a fish-class so they can buckle lots of swash and cast a flash of spell. I get that.
These people would like to see this fish having a full BAB and moderate skills and they say the Bard was no good (I admit to oversimplify here).
Other people talk about game balance and that a full BAB and "full" casting did not match.
Leading the first group of people to cite the Paladin as a divine fish with full BAB and take it to "prove" that a full BAB/moderate cast-build was viable and balanced.
Here's the puzzler:
The Paladin has a full BAB and several useful abilities, BUR he cannot cast spells before level 4 or 5 and he can never acquire spells above 4th level. So how does that validate a call for a full BAB/6th lvl spell fish??
Am I the only one to whom that sounds like apples and pears?
But then it seems this thread is about different sorts of lip-gloss now.
my group, though they mostly are men of varying ages, are pretty sexist against women. all thier npc women have high charisma too. i try to avoid the "Sexually Active" archtype. i keep average charisma, but try to keep it lower than the hottest npc in the nearest major city. i try to avoid in character lust. as i myself am uncomfortable with roleplaying these acts myself.
sorry for derailing. gotta go to bed. seeya on these boards later.
Ok, sorry, this obviously is the "frivolous adventures of my perky characters thread"... I'll leave you to it then...
|
|
Ok, sorry, this obviously is the "frivolous adventures of my perky characters thread"... I'll leave you to it then...
Eh, we just got bored for a bit.
I'm probably the wrong person to answer your questions, as I see the "bard isn't good enough, I need full BAB/6 or 9 level progression" side as 99% powergaming cheeseheads and 1% people who might be serious but don't quite get the implications.
The "I like the concept, but see it as more of a 3/4 BAB - 6 level progression" are the more reasonable bunch imo.
I also can get down with the "full BAB, progress like a paladin in spells with some cool class features" crowd, but haven't seen many of them.
I'm totally down with the concept, there is archetype precedent in film/lit/whatever, but I don't want to see an arcane version of the cleric with better BAB.
And I really hate the term "gish" used for anything other than its original context. IMO, it's cheesy.
Anyway...
Help me please:
There are people who desperately need a fish-class so they can buckle lots of swash and cast a flash of spell. I get that.
These people would like to see this fish having a full BAB and moderate skills and they say the Bard was no good (I admit to oversimplify here).
Other people talk about game balance and that a full BAB and "full" casting did not match.
Leading the first group of people to cite the Paladin as a divine fish with full BAB and take it to "prove" that a full BAB/moderate cast-build was viable and balanced.Here's the puzzler:
The Paladin has a full BAB and several useful abilities, BUR he cannot cast spells before level 4 or 5 and he can never acquire spells above 4th level. So how does that validate a call for a full BAB/6th lvl spell fish??Am I the only one to whom that sounds like apples and pears?
No you're not. I have already mentioned this either in this thread or another about a ftr/wiz class but it was ignored. Selective vision I guess. The other point about the Paladin is where is the dump stat? To be a decent Paladin you can't treat any stat bar perhaps INT and DEX as a dump. They need STR and CON to be the fighty bit and WIS to cast spells and CHA for all the nice add-ons.
If you are going to build a ftr/wiz class then I strongly believe if you use the Paladin is used as an example then spell progression and choice should roughly be the same. But from what I have seen people want casting from the word Go, full BAB, martial weapons, heavy armor (and all with no spell failure) which is to me over the top.
Take the warblade from ToB for example. Does that class in any way impinge on either the wizard or the cleric? Because it has ninth-level "casting", along with full BAB, martial weapons and I guess medium armor. (You can argue that it overshadows base melee classes, and I'd mostly agree with you, but it'd still do that even if you condensed the maneuvers down to only four or six "levels".)
The point is that the real stats that matter are the derived stats, not the base stats. You can have nine levels of spells, as long as level 9 isn't Wish, or even Summon Monster IX. Magically Hit A Dude In The Face works exactly the same way if it's a level 4 spell or a level 9 spell, as long as it doesn't have a standard spell save DC. There's not a lot of reason to do so unless you want scaling spell DCs or unless you want to make the class look powerful, but conversely there's no real reason not to do that except for scaling spell DCs.
The biggest obstacle and the strongest reason not to do that is because making nine tiers worth of level-appropriate abilities, with enough variation to generate real choice within each tier, is a lot of freaking work and a gobsmackingly huge page-count. The support for the warblade alone would be a larger pagecount than an AP installment.
Now, if the point you're making is that the character won't be casting level-appropriate spells at level 15 or so, then I think you're probably on the wrong track. What the paladin and ranger do well is making utility magic a tertiary schtick, and I don't think utility magic should be stronger than that, if present at all, for a class who is sitting in the fighter chair.
Overshadowing the Fighter is a concern.
So what chair should this class sit in? If it is the fighters then I think the spells should kick in at 4/5 level and progress like the Paladins with a similar number. Or if its the Wizards then the armor has to be similar to the bards with similar spell progression *but* a more melee orientated spell list.
The biggest obstacle and the strongest reason not to do that is because making nine tiers worth of level-appropriate abilities, with enough variation to generate real choice within each tier, is a lot of freaking work and a gobsmackingly huge page-count. The support for the warblade alone would be a larger pagecount than an AP installment.Now, if the point you're making is that the character won't be casting level-appropriate spells at level 15 or so, then I think you're probably on the wrong track. What the paladin and ranger do well is making utility magic a tertiary schtick, and I don't think utility magic should be stronger than that, if present at all, for a class who is sitting in the fighter chair.
Very good point.
But think about the barbarian, for example.
What about building a "magical fighter" similar to the barb with "arcane combat powers" instead of rage powers? It would be great and unique!
I think that PF RPG already offers a plethora of means to obtain a fighter who also uses magic, but not a REAL "Magical supernatural warrior"
A new interesting class should have new interesting abilities, not a mix and match of existing ones. The cavalier and the Oracle are good example of what I mean.
Sensible stuff
I have had a look at tejon's Iron Mage and I have to say I do quite like it and Hayden's post has given me food for thought.
It is probably an issue with my mind-set...I'm a crusty old gamer and I freely admit that. I never had an issue (still haven't!) with just multi-classing as that is how I've always done it. Old campaigns would take years of real time and we would all still be just touching double numbers level wise. Now the speed that PCs advance levels has risen to me it just doesn't seem a big deal but to others it plainly does.
It just strikes me that players want their PC to be all things which from my perspective is just wrong. When I started the classes and what they brought to the group were clear, Fighters bashed things, Wizards blew things up with spells, Clerics healed and Thieves...err Rogues...found the traps and opened the locks. The roles were clear now there seems to be a blurring of lines.
The main problem from my point of view is that their seems to be no consensus of what a "gish" class should be and I keep going back to the original githyanki and see a multiclassed Ftr/Wiz and all the problems/good stuff associated with it. However it seems the majority of people want it to be something else.
It is probably an issue with my mind-set...I'm a crusty old gamer and I freely admit that.
For what it's worth: I've been pleasantly surprised at just how many regulars here are crustier than me. :) Glad you like my bit, too. I'm largely of the "just multiclass" school myself, but with two divine half-casters it really did feel like there was a gap there. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've been a devout bard fan since its 2nd Edition redesign; but while there are some enhancements promised in the APG, I don't expect it to move from "skirmishy support melee" to "stand in the way of the troll," so that felt like the right niche to target.
|
The problem is, though, yes, quite a few people are desiring a full BAB/9 level spell progression class with no spell failure armor penalty. Otherwise, it would be quite easy to repurpose the bard chassis and get something serviceable.
Show me one. For real. I haven't seen a single one. The people arguing against what's being requested are not actually paying attention to what's being requested.