Awesome for you that you've decided magic has no definition in your world. (A definition describes what something is not just as much as it defines what something is. Since, in your world, there is nothing that magic is not, there is no definition of it.) Now, go GM that. For many campaign settings, however, magic is not a giant Deus ex Machina, Many of us believe that something as fundamental as magic must have a definition. So, you go GM your world and we'll GM ours.
Oh, magic has a definition. In fact, it's quite extensively defined. However, magic is weird and it's not lined up to, "This school gives us Warmages and that phenomenon gives us incarnum," or any such rubbish.
When I have a trio of human test subjects who've had spare limbs grafted onto their bodies and aberrant goos injected into them and have been subjected to repeated forced demonic possessions until they're glowing with residual evilmancy and I choose to represent those creatures with Totemist/Unbound Witch, that magic most certainly means something. It just doesn't mean the text book, "Animal worshipper and reckless haggler combination." It means "Holy crap, this is a freakish abomination that was not meant to be and wields bizarre and unpredictable powers and- Oh, yuck, eyes do not go there!"
The Rogue class can represent a con artist or an assassin or an adventurer/archaeologist with equal ease. That does not mean the Rogue class means nothing. Rather, the meaning of the Rogue class is dependent on the character who bears it.
The same is true of every single magic-using class, regardless of system. The Psion can represent Carrie, the tower wizard classic, or an eastern-style yogi. Regardless, it definitely has meaning in the context of the world, relative to that character.
Having a Warmage and a Healer both drawing on the power of Glowy contributes to the robustness and magnitude of Glowy's might; no follower truly draws on the full breadth of that which is Glowy. The Warmage channels Glowy's rage to incinerate his foes, while the Healer channels Glowy's nurturing benevolence to bring the gift of life to the people. The meaning of Warmage and Healer in these cases are relative to the character, but they definitely have deep meaning.
And that meaning is not detracted from in the least if the world also includes a Warmage who forcibly bound an efreet in his own body to gain power and a Healer who draws her power from intense study of magical lore and ritual. The classes and the magic still have meaning.
Because a church and the churches god wishes it to be clerics? Character are but a small part of the world.
Yes, they're clerics, but why in the world should they have to be Clerics?
The word "cleric" means "a member of the group or body of ordained persons in a religion, as distinguished from the laity," not, "dude/dudette with medium BAB, heavy armor proficiency, and full divine casting from a very specific list plus two domains."
A real-world priest would probably be best represented as a 1HD Expert with no magical ability whatsoever. They're still clerics.
Likewise, it makes perfect sense for Cruk, god of crime and darkness to grant her followers deceptive magics, and for her followers to develop sneaky skills; abilities that are well-represented by the Beguiler or Shadowcaster. It only makes sense for someone who holds the political station of cleric in the name of Cruk, who wields her powers, to have those powers manifest as the Beguiler or Shadowcaster classes; it makes far more sense than to have them manifest as a zombie-controlling negative energy channeller who might have a couple sneaky spells from a domain and who has no criminal skills worth mentioning.
It only contributes to the world if the clergy of the crime god wield powers that are actually appropriate for clergy of the crime god.
Likewise, the aforementioned 'splodey Warmage of our sun god Glowy? He's a full cleric of his order, and his powers manifest in a perfectly logical way; killing things with fire. It certainly makes more sense for a sun god's priest than summoning a celestial bison.
Game mechanics do not exist in a vacuum. If someone know what to look for its as clear as a car vs a bike.
And now you have your NPCs metagaming and they know they can run their cattle off a sixty-foot cliff with no risk of permanently damaged product.
If the NPCs know class, they know everything else about the game mechanics and you have the parody that is the GitP-verse.
Or you could just be pulling a double standard, somehow declaring the NPCs to be ignorant of the obvious mechanical workings of the world while declaring it to be blindingly obvious who has what class by the glowing class-and-level header floating over the PCs' heads.
Classes are a bag of mechanics. What fluff they have are given by those mechanics and nothing else.
Also, a cleric (holy man) and a Cleric (the class) are two different things. Not all assassins are Assassins.
Guys stop stealing the wonder and magic out of my game.
Incidentally what "magic" is has been strictly regulated in my game to ensure there is no wonder or actual "magic" in the mechanics of magic.
Why would you play like this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are a bag of mechanics.
But then, what is a man?
The game ID'S a cleric as always the cleric class, the word your hunting is priest. I do agree using the name cleric for what is more or less a Templar was a bad call.
The fact remains that unless you declare it imposable by changing basic rules class mechanics are not invisible at all.
The game ID'S a cleric as always the cleric class, the word your hunting is priest. I do agree using the name cleric for what is more or less a Templar was a bad call.
No, the word I'm looking for is definitely cleric. As opposed to Cleric. Because that Warmage of Glowy is undeniably clergy, while that Cleric of an ideal is not a cleric of any sort.
The fact remains that unless you declare it imposable by changing basic rules class mechanics are not invisible at all.
Just like the formulae for falling damage aren't invisible, and saving throws aren't invisible, and hit points aren't invisible, and they can all be counted and calculated and are known by all. Huzzah, Order of the Stick-verse, the only sensible and internally consistent D&D world.
Ya know just for the hell of it while I have bad class names on my mind I would like to find who ever decided Barbarian over berserker as a class name and smack em.
Vetta I understand you whole heartily ignore the skill rules or just tell player No You auto fail that roll" so you can make sure no one can tell a wizard and a psion are not both wizards but the rules do not work that way.
And a cleric is a cleric unless again you decide to rename class, for publishers and any non homebrew game that name is lost as a standard priest. I do agree as I said it was a bad call to name a class that is a holy warrior a cleric in place of a Templar or something but it is done.
A priest is not limited to class, a cleric is.
Vetta I understand you whole heartily ignore the skill rules or just tell player No You auto fail that roll" so you can make sure no one can tell a wizard and a psion are not both wizards but the rules do not work that way.
There is no roll to identify a character's class.
And a cleric is a cleric unless again you decide to rename class, for publishers and any non homebrew game that name is lost as a standard priest. I do agree as I said it was a bad call to name a class that is a holy warrior a cleric in place of a Templar or something but it is done.
A priest is not limited to class, a cleric is.
The rules explicitly state that a Cleric can be unaffiliated with any church and have no deity, instead devoting themselves to an ideal that they personally uphold. That character is not a cleric. They are not a part of any clergy and therefore, irrefutably, by definition, plain as day, cannot be a cleric. Period.
How can you possibly claim that all clerics must be Clerics and all Clerics must be clerics when the rules explicitly state that Clerics don't have to be clerics?
And how is it that the stock Monster Manual orc is laid out quite clearly as a barbarian, yet uses the Warrior class? A barbarian who isn't a Barbarian, just as not all Barbarians have to be barbarians. The concept of a barbarian is not restricted to a class, nor is the concept of a cleric or a wizard or a fighter (after all, pretty much every Barbarian is a fighter) or a rogue or a ranger or a druid or a bard or a warrior or a commoner.
How can you claim clerics to be locked to the Cleric class when there are so many warriors running around without a single level in the Warrior class, or so many Bard aristocrats with zero levels of Aristocrat?
You accuse me of ignoring rules that don't exist, and all the while you ignore rules that do. I do believe that's called hypocrisy.
A cleric class is a cleric, just as a fighter who does not use weapons but his fists is still a fighter. Ya can disagree all ya want my book does not list 2 names for the cleric class.
I have said the name was a bad , but it is what a cleric is, a servant of a god can be a priest of any class, but a cleric is always a cleric.
The rules explicitly allow for Clerics who do not hold the dictionary-defined political station of cleric.
The rules explicitly allow Barbarians who fight and are thus, by definition, fighters despite their lack of Fighter levels.
By what logic do you disallow Warmages from being clerics when you allow Barbarians to be fighters?
The class names are just labels, with no inherent weight.
So what is a Cleric who worships no god, but instead seeks power through enlightenment?
He is a cleric. Once ya call a class by a name, you loose that class as a general use term. Ya can't just call anyone a wizard, or a fighter or a bard as those terms have become tied to a class.
A cleric is a cleric. The name by this point in time is tied to the cleric class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are a bag of mechanics.But then, what is a man?
A miserable little pile of secrets!
The class names are just labels, with no inherent weight.
Incorrect, ya can change this for your game but as it stands those names are tied to classes very strongly.
So what is a Cleric who worships no god, but instead seeks power through enlightenment?He is a cleric. Once ya call a class by a name, you loose that class as a general use term. Ya can't just call anyone a wizard, or a fighter or a bard as those terms have become tied to a class.
A cleric is a cleric. The name by this point in time is tied to the cleric class.
My rogue plays a lute and masquerades as an entertainer to get into houses before assassinating someone inside.
Guess what? He's called a bard.
Incorrect, ya can change this for your game but as it stands those names are tied to classes very strongly.
The class names are just labels, with no inherent weight.
Nope.avi.
Thing is, you can't prove it. Go on, show me where the class name is definable by in game or in character areas. What's the skill to find out what someone's class is? If I see someone with a big coat on do I know he's a wizard, or a thief, or a fighter, or a barbarian?
What about an arcane trickster? Do I know if she's a rogue/wizard or a rogue/sorcerer?
Why is he a cleric? All he does is sit on a mountaintop meditating about the universe. He doesn't belong to any ecclesiastic order.
Because he is a cleric.
He is a cleric. Once ya call a class by a name, you loose that class as a general use term. Ya can't just call anyone a wizard, or a fighter or a bard as those terms have become tied to a class.
Bull. S#$+.
Where in the nine Hells do you even get something like that? Give me a page number that says class names start ripping pages out of the dictionary and removing them from the vocabulary, that PCs must use their class titles as terms of identification, that the Fighter cannot ever be a warrior unless they take levels in Warrior, that the Bard noble is not and can never be an aristocrat without taking Aristocrat levels.
There is no such rule, and it is utter lunacy to expect others to automatically conform to this nonrule from nowhere that is devoid of any logic and can only ever detract from the game.
Nope.avi.
Thing is, you can't prove it.
Ok whats listed as the class name in your book? What do publishers always list NPC classes as.You can disagree till ya are blue in the face it does not change the fact that those terms are tired to those classes.
Ok so your argument is rule 1? Ok then I can't argue with ya hoseruling stuff guys its your houserules and all.
Maybe, is he in a guild? is that a requirement of that guild? As that is the whole argument. You simply can not hide most classes.
Seeker, by the standards you're using, every NPC in the world ought to have Order of the Stick level meta-awareness. You're applying a double standard that doesn't make any sense.
Why would people in the game world stop using the word "warrior" to describe mighty stabbers of stuff who just happen to be Barbarian/Fighter/Rangers with Favored Enemy: Big Scary Things? For what reason would the peasants refuse to acknowledge this person as a warrior unless they're looking at the metagame? For what in-game reason would they refer to twelve nobles as aristocrats, but not the Bard who is irrefutably aristocracy?
I got no issues with most non magical classes guys. You really can't tell a rogue from a fighter or a ranger for the most part. However once you start using very distinct skills or magic then yes ya can tell. A cleric much like a wizard has distinctive ability and spells he simply can not hide.
Now on the assassin, I would only says yes if you were part of a guild that required that PRC. Not all would require it, some would as "guild training" but not all. It really is in the setting.
Rubbish, the lot of it; you're still just having the NPCs metagame and applying double standards.
And why is "tin can that hates/loves zombies" more suitable for clergy in-game than "inspirational speaker of the holy word?" (A perfectly valid Bard.) Why would that Bard be seen as any less of a cleric, in a world where the people don't have the PHB sitting in front of them? Why would they be unable to accept that priests of the thief god are supernaturally good at knicking your stuff? And why do you automatically hand NPCs the Cliff Notes on all the magic classes but not on the differences between the guy who gets "bench press a beluga whale at level one" as a class feature?
Eh I disagree. Ya can ignore skills all ya want in your game and have learned folks to foolish to add 2+2 if ya like, its your game after all. But You simply can not completely separate mechanics from in world knowledge, the game has simply tied them to closely.
|
I thought I'd seen it all when it came to forums SOS. But seeing someone use Jedi as something that cannot fit into a game world is just incredible. Seriously JEDI. Any DM imo would most likely outright refuse someeone to play a jedi.In all my years of gaming and it has been at least 20+ years no one has come up to me and ansked in any D&D in using any published and home brew campaigns if they wanted to play a jedi.
If your not willing to actually give a serious answer and no using jedi in the context of a fanatsy rpg is not a serios answer imo stop pulling stuff out of your behind SOS. It's like having a discussion about the merits of meat products and someone decides to start talking about the merits of flax. Sometimes in these threads it just anything and everything. Espcially when someone has to forcilby ram a point home. While your at it SOS hoe about using the Chewbacca defence.
VV, you'd likely have fun in my game -- certainly it would be interesting and informative to have you as a player, as it was when TOZ was able to join some of our sessions. Seeker would never play in my game, even if invited; it just wouldn't make sense to him, even if it does to us. Just as I wouldn't play in his game, because his idiosyncratic rules make no sense at all to me. But that's OK; the hobby's big enough for all of us.
heh, there is a poster here who had the Jedi player issue. He was speaking to us in chat one night about it over a year back now and that is where I got it from really. Coarse his group issues went far beyond the Jedi and I doubt anyone in this thread would have gamed with them but I did not just pull it out of thin air.
Any DM imo would most likely outright refuse someone to play a jedi.
Then you obviously didn't read my responses? "Jedi" on the run from "the Empire" = githyanki "gish" on the run from the "mind flayers." Done. You have your Jedi, and Seeker has his setting fluff protected, and everyone's happy. C'mon -- give me something I'd actually have to ban outright, instead of merely playing a shell game with the serial numbers (to shamelessly mix a metaphor).
A shaved wookie porn star {something I sadly allowed once} How about a 5 headed dragon ?
1. A shaved wookie porn star {something I sadly allowed once}
2. How about a 5 headed dragon ?
1. If kept within the MPA rating tolerance of the other players, go for it. ("Wookie" = "alaghi," so again a quick name change keeps your precious FR sensibilities intact.)
2. If (a) we can work out some sort of a level-adjustment system so that all the other PCs aren't totally outclassed, and (b) you don't mind people attacking you when you fly into cities, then yes, be my guest.
Wait I thought of another one, A vampire, half troll, half dragon , fiendish elf that's also half dwarf?
Wait I thought of another one, A vampire, half troll, half dragon , fiendish elf that's also half dwarf?
See above. With appropriate LA, yes.
If kept within the MPA rating tolerance of the other players, go for it. ("Wookie" = "alaghi," so again a quick name change keeps your precious FR sensibilities intact.)
No, this was a star was game, I think it was the combo of saying yes to a "shaved wookie porn star" with the player that played him along with his "Jawa fetish" that was a bit to much
Wait I thought of another one, A vampire, half troll, half dragon , fiendish elf that's also half dwarf?See above. With appropriate LA, yes.
Heh, I said no to that one.
Anyway, playing such a restrictive character concept is its own punishment; the player will get sick of it after a session or two and ask to make a new character, in my experience. Which is fine; it makes the "problem" self-correcting, so that I don't have to do it. It's my job to run the game, not dictate to the players what they can or cannot play.
On the dragon note, do you recall the write ups in dragon that broke up all the types into 20 level classes? I offered to let a player use those once, for some reason he decided not to as he couldn't play a "real" dragon.
Go fig.
|
|
Then you obviously didn't read my responses? "Jedi" on the run from "the Empire" = githyanki "gish" on the run from the "mind flayers." Done. You have your Jedi, and Seeker has his setting fluff protected, and everyone's happy. C'mon -- give me something I'd actually have to ban outright, instead of merely playing a shell game with the serial numbers (to shamelessly mix a metaphor).
I did and agree with them. It just that for most including Jedi in a fanatsy world is strange. Not undoable and some may allow it just really weird. Jedi imo is synonymous with science fiction and not fanatsy.
Not undoable and some may allow it just really weird. Jedi imo is synonymous with science fiction and not fanatsy.
Which was the point as it was not really appropriate for the setting or tone of the game.
Eh I disagree. Ya can ignore skills all ya want in your game and have learned folks to foolish to add 2+2 if ya like, its your game after all. But You simply can not completely separate mechanics from in world knowledge, the game has simply tied them to closely.
Unless the cleric was in a position where he had to use a Cleric's power the world would never know, and they still might not know unless everyone's knows what everyone's else's class feature's are from 1 to 20.