Oh lawdy. o_o
For some classes their name, such as the paladin is who the class is to a large extent,I'd dare say that even Paladins aren't exempt from name/fluff/crunch disconnection. I mean, I don't think the D&D/PF Paladin has much to do with being a Christian Knight fighting Muslims. At least...I didn't see a smite Muslim in their class features and I'd really like to think smite evil isn't intended to represent the same.
o_o
Well Lay on Hands is described to be an attribute of the Merovingian dynasty of French Kings that preceded the Carolingian kings (Charlemagne), since the 12 Peers (paladins) served Charlemagne, that mythical connection to paladins and lay on hands make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The interesting thing, is races ARE handled the same as classes.
They give you bonus abilities, just like the classes.
If I were to handle races like classes, I could say, you can play an elf much better if you are a dwarf...because I see elfs like those that helped the shoemaker or are santa's elves and they are good at stonecutting and other things that they should be, as well as utilizing things that these elves should, such as axes and hammers and picks.
They bear closer resemblance to the Scandinavian elves than the elf, therefore, the dwarf makes a better elf than an elf.
or...
I'm going to use the elf, but it's going to be a goblin, because traditionally goblins are magical creatures with keen senses and very dexterous. The elven immunities are perfect for the goblin, and they get the elven magic trait as any goblin should.
It's really the same thing as discarding the fluff for a class, as discarding the fluff for a race.
That's where it's sort of hypocritical to a degree...though perfectly reasonable to do so when using the fluff of a race, but not of a class. If it's ONLY about the numbers, and you can disregard fluff for class, you can also do so for races equally so. That Half-Orc there, it's a bad Half-Orc, you should use a gnome instead, or similar discussions SHOULD be popping up all the time, but they don't.
It's ironic how staunch people who will say to discard fluff as class, will not be so staunch to discard fluff as race.
To tell the truth, that's not a big thing...and not even what I was contending anyways. I do find it ironic.
I see it as whatever style of roleplaying you desire. If you desire one where you create your own fluff for classes (OR races even, though that is FAR more rare, and normally not quite off from the stereotypes as a class, for example...the elf race is still the elf race instead of people using it to play another race) than that's a perfectly fine style to play.
What I WAS contending was someone's comment that pre-made fluff kills Roleplaying. I want to say that's absolutely wrong...and in fact whether it's pre-made fluff, or personally made fluff, or GM fluff, fluff is WHAT MAKES roleplaying and roleplaying game, instead of count the numbers and keep on counting.
Pre-made fluff can be JUST as good as GM made fluff (and sometimes better if you've seen some GM's that don't spend any time on their worlds...and you end up playing in some dungeon with no backstory, no plot, and just there to kill things).
It's not fluff of any sort that kills roleplaying, what kills roleplaying are people concentrating on things like numbers and crunch over roleplaying, or focusing overly much on their ipad apps (if you want to know what really kills rpg's at the table, it's far more this than crunch even) at the table.
Some bits of fluff are easier to separate from crunch than others.
If I want to play a half-orc with the bonuses of a dwarf, or vice versa, it could be done with permission of a kind GM, though you'd have a tangle of 'speaks dwarvish and is proficient with dwarvish waraxe' to deal with. If you wanted to play an unusually small human, then the stats of a halfling would be a reasonable way to do it. But it wouldn't be RAW / PFS legal, in the way that a Monk who isn't a monk would be.
Changing a barbarian to a martial character who isn't from a barbarian tribe is fairly easy. Changing an alchemist to something else requires some heavy effort in reimagining all his powers.
And I guess some people just like the default archetypes associated with the classes as written?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone was saying you can't or shouldn't do the same thing with races. Personally I support that.
In a Mummy's Mask game I'm in currently, I'm playing an orc from a high mountain nation that, due to minor intervention from Aroden before his passing as an experiment, developed a more peaceful society that tends towards solving problems with diplomacy, ingenuity, and craftsmanship, with a skilled standing army as backup when that fails. They're modeled as half-orcs with the Skilled alternate racial trait, but they're still orcs as far as everyone in the setting is concerned.
I'm not really sure why you started ranting about how "races ARE handled the same as classes" and that people are staunch about not using races for different things or hypocritical or something. That's not really related to what anyone is saying.
If you're looking for ideas, by the way, gnome stats would probably make a good Keebler-esque (or North Pole dwelling) elf and elves with Silent Hunter and Fleet-footed can work pretty well for gray-heads (Ooh, or maybe even Dreamspeaker!).
hell, i reskinned a Dwarf Babrarian as a human sized Treant and it worked just fine.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think races are less likely to be reflavoured than classes because races are more distinct in-game concepts/categories than most classes. It's easier for people in the world to tell the difference between a dwarf and an elf than to tell the difference between a witch class and a druid class, especially if the witch is built to fit a "druid" concept or vice-versa. Classes represent skill sets, races represent biologically separated groups.
So a reflavoured race means either:
(1) that race means something entirely different in the world, eg all elves are small craftspersons.
(2) a subrace or variant exists, eg elves living in the cold mountains are hardier and more stone-skilled than their temperate woodland cousins.
(3) the character is highly unusual or unique in a way that draws attention, in which case being a "freak" becomes part of the concept, eg the medium-size treant using dwarf stats, or a grippli to play a character who is stuck halfway between "frog" and "prince" in a world where grippli don't exist as a race.
You can make a character with the druid or alchemist who calls herself a "witch" without NPCs or sometimes even players at the table batting an eye, but if you make a medium-sized "goblin" wizard then either the GM needs to change the setting to include medium-size goblin wizards or else the player needs to accept that they're not just another goblin like all the other magical goblins out there. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that it happens less often than people fiddling with class flavour.
Of course, the amount of difference is also a factor. People probably wouldn't notice in-game if an orc was using half-orc stats or vice versa, while a barbarian would have a hard time introducing himself as a "wizard."
the medium sized treant using dwarf stats was used in a very high fantasy savage worlds game in a system where reskinning and even applying your own fluff is actually encouraged. because savage worlds, instead of writing a set of trappings for you, gives a few examples and opens the door to create your own trappings
which might even allow substitutions, like swapping an Elf's Agility bonus for a bonus edge and swapping the all thumbs hindrance for the perverse hindrance allowed me to create a nymph from an advanced civilization of muses and artists that were more about innovation than ties to culture. if i converted this subrace to pathfinder, they would use half elf mechanics with a few special alternate racials focused on their advanced education
|
As a result you are actively murdering many, many character concepts, especially if there is no pre-established fluff for the concept whether there are mechanics that would allow it to begin with, or you are forcing everyone to look like everyone else in the world.
I don't entirely agree...
I tend to not allow the re-skinning of classes because the game rules usually have the option of creating new character classes, with the steps on how to do so included (e.g. this was true of both 2nd and 3rd edition).
So if a player wishes to play something that is not within the rules already or represented by one of the available classes, they are free to come to me with an idea for a totally new class (or, since I play 2nd edition AD&D, a new character kit if that would fit their character idea better instead of an entirely new class).
I also tend to not allow the re-skinning of races either because the races within my settings are fairly well established...
But then, I don't run a game where the players are able to add to the setting outside of actual game-play (meaning that once the game starts, it is then that the players, through their characters, can affect and change the world around their characters through their characters in-game actions).
Obviously, YMMV...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the best option is reinventing the wheel because you don't want to metagame class names in-game like people actually wore signs over their head saying "Fighter".
Yeah...that makes tons of sense. Why don't we all just do that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put me in the camp of "Classes are simply what a suite of powers and abilities are called".
Then again, I'm the guy who is (slowly) working on replacing classes with "Archetypes" full of "pick your own ability". The Warrior, The Mage, The Scoundrel, etc.
Classes are cool and all, but they're so passe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put me in the camp of "Classes are simply what a suite of powers and abilities are called".
Then again, I'm the guy who is (slowly) working on replacing classes with "Archetypes" full of "pick your own ability". The Warrior, The Mage, The Scoundrel, etc.
Classes are cool and all, but they're so passe.
This reminds me of how my new d20 core is intended to function. Core classes as a design rule will be modular with certain fundamental mechanics that lay the framework for playstyle, and then lots of different selectable class features that allow you to customize to theme and preferred playstyle.
As a direct result, there will likely be fewer classes overall (some will be redundant) but there will be many, many more possible characters that can be made with them. I also intend to improve the way multiclassing will work (and the modularity enhances this nicely).
Put me in the camp of "Classes are simply what a suite of powers and abilities are called".
Then again, I'm the guy who is (slowly) working on replacing classes with "Archetypes" full of "pick your own ability". The Warrior, The Mage, The Scoundrel, etc.
Classes are cool and all, but they're so passe.
This reminds me of how my new d20 core is intended to function. Core classes as a design rule will be modular with certain fundamental mechanics that lay the framework for playstyle, and then lots of different selectable class features that allow you to customize to theme and preferred playstyle.
As a direct result, there will likely be fewer classes overall (some will be redundant) but there will be many, many more possible characters that can be made with them. I also intend to improve the way multiclassing will work (and the modularity enhances this nicely).
Nifty ^_^. I'll send you a PM about it to avoid derailing the thread further.
That said... I've always been a big fan of fluff over crunch. I don't much care if the crunch fits the fluff entirely. My "Mage" can be any from of arcane caster, not just Wizard or Magus. Could even be a bard!
|
|
like people actually wore signs over their head saying "Fighter".
No, but people also don't go around wearing signs that say "biochemist", "farmer", or "school teacher"; though there are some professions that do advertise, such as "doctor", "police officer", and "cable guy".
Which brings me to my point; I still view the character classes as professions. Which is exactly how they were portrayed way back in 1st edition AD&D.
I also require that a character spend both time and gold to train before they are able to advance to a new level once they have earned enough experience points to do so.
So, if a player is playing a super unique ninja that is really a circus performer who is really a secret agent that spies for the king; well, good luck finding another person that shares the same [unique] class as you in order to teach you your new level because:
This tutor must be of the same class and higher level than the one the character is training for.
So at least with a new character class (or kit) that both the player and myself came up with, a president has been set, so I can easily have in-game reasons for why and how the new class does what it does in my setting, thus keeping the game mechanics from being disassociated from the setting, and keep the verisimilitude intact (both are VERY much important to me).
But again I remind you, I am a card-carrying "You kids get off my lawn!" grognard through and through!
Yeah...that makes tons of sense. Why don't we all just do that?
Well, I did say: "Obviously, YMMV..."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, but people also don't go around wearing signs that say "biochemist", "farmer", or "school teacher"; though there are some professions that do advertise, such as "doctor", "police officer", and "cable guy".
Everything mentioned here is just a skill set. A Ranger can literally be all of these things. An expert can be all of these things. These aren't things that one would need to make an entire class for. If a player told me they wanted to have a character who was originally a farmer and as a result wished for us to homebrew a "farmer" class, I'd facepalm.
Which brings me to my point; I still view the character classes as professions. Which is exactly how they were portrayed way back in 1st edition AD&D.
Your average McSlave is actually a 7th level dual-dual-dual-dual-dual classed human, with levels in Kindergarden Student, Highschool Student, Bagboy, Burger Flopper, College Student, Best Buy assistant, and later on levels it Guidance Councilor. :D
Beware gorblins, we'z got hit dice to spare. >:D
|
|
If a player told me they wanted to have a character who was originally a farmer and as a result wished for us to homebrew a "farmer" class, I'd facepalm.
Well, in 3rd edition and Pathfinder, there is already a class that can handle that; the Commoner NPC class, or, if you really want to make a really good farmer, you could use the Expert NPC class... ;-P
But since I am coming at this from a 2nd edition AD&D standpoint, if the player really wanted to make a farmer, and not just have farming as a background, then creating a new kit would better suit such a concept...
The kits of 2nd edition had such titles as:
Amazon
Pirate
Peasant Hero
Beggar
Fence
Smuggler
Militant Wizard
Outlaw Priest
And that's just a sampling of kits from just the core 4 classes (and there were 22 books in the "Complete" series alone, each filled with new kits. Plus there were kits in quite a lot of the other source books as well)...
But kits are not full classes...
Let's take a look at some full classes from editions past:
Astrologer
Bounty Hunter
Duelist
Geisya
Jester
Merchant
Savant
Smith
And that's just a few from a very long list.
The argument could be made that those classes were intended for NPCs only, but we both know, that most gamers let players use them (and it has been argued that these so called NPC only classes were labeled that way because of the views Gyxax held)...
Anyway, here are a few full classes for use by players for 2nd edition AD&D:
The Soldier
The Tradesman
The mystic
The reason I pointed all of those out is because they represent concepts that could be made by re-skinning the core classes.
It's not difficult to make a new class (and it's even easier to make a new Kit), and it makes for a more permanent part of the campaign setting than just a single re-skin of a class. It also allows me as the DM to add that concept to my setting and make it an integral part, while maintaining my setting's verisimilitude and not just something fleeting and temporary like a re-skinned class more than likely would wind up being.
Like I said, I do not like disassociated game mechanics. I want a person in the world to be able to tell someone asking them why he can do what it is he can do. And while this can be explained with a re-skin, I don’t run a game where players are free to create and add to the setting (to do so requires my co-operation and final say). Most re-skinned classes I hear or read about are one shot deals for the players doing it, and would require whole institutions (no matter the size) to keep that character trained and possibly even functioning (because of exotic weapons or equipment). I just don’t want that headache.
It may be a headache for you to make a new class instead of just re-skinning another class, but making that (more than likely, one-off) character, logically work in my setting is a headache I’d rather avoid.
For me, I just do not like re-skinning the classes. In my view, classes are not a series of numbers that can be worked and re-worked at a whim. Like I said, classes are the character's chosen profession or career, and you can't take a CPR class in high school and call yourself an EMT after graduation; you'd still have more classes to take...
But it's not just my opinion that classes are a character's profession. It comes directly from the rules that I use to play:
A character class is like a profession or career. It is what your character has worked and trained at during his younger years. If you wanted to become a doctor, you could not walk out the door and begin work immediately. First you would have to get some training. The same is true of character classes in the AD&D game.
No, it's not a perfect system, but I don't have the inclination or a valid enough reason to change it. I happen to think it works just fine as it stands...
Your average McSlave is actually a 7th level dual-dual-dual-dual-dual classed human, with levels in Kindergarden Student, Highschool Student, Bagboy, Burger Flopper, College Student, Best Buy assistant, and later on levels it Guidance Councilor. :D
D&D has never tried to accurately portray or simulate the vast capabilities the human race has or is capable of... And I think that the classes as written do a good job of defining who a character is; so when a player says; "my character is a fighter!" that's because by the RAW (of my chosen game anyway), the character IS a fighter. He is a Fighter in the same vein as someone telling you they are a doctor, a fireman, or even a gourmet chef.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree pretty much completely with Ashiel on this one. I understand where DigitalElf is coming from in terms of 2E, but much as I love the Archetype/Kit comparison, Pathfinder and 2E are not the same game, and are not designed with the same definitions in mind.
The very existence of skills as a meaningful and expanding thing profoundly alters the dynamic between Class and in-world Profession. And makes Class Abilities several orders of magnitude less essential in defining one's in-world role.
In short, applying the standards of 2E to Pathfinder in this area is inappropriate, and a mistake.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder and 2E are not the same game, and are not designed with the same definitions in mind.
I agree with this. They are not the same game, but from past (anecdotal) experience, the definitions of 2nd edition can be successfully applied to 3rd edition and Pathfinder.
The very existence of skills as a meaningful and expanding thing profoundly alters the dynamic between Class and in-world Profession.
I agree with this as well... In 2nd edition, if you want a character that can pick a lock as well as pick a pocket with any reasonable degree of success, then your choice is pretty limited, as these abilities are not "skills" available to all like they are in 3rd edition and Pathfinder.
applying the standards of 2E to Pathfinder in this area is inappropriate, and a mistake.
Here I have to disagree with you. As I've said earlier in this post, my experience has shown (even though it is totally anecdotal) that it can be done, and done successfully. When the editions changed (from 2nd to 3rd, and from 3rd to Pathfinder), I did not alter my views of the game, nor the style in which I ran it.
I realize that there are those that would not enjoy my gaming style or agree with my views of the game (or elements thereof). I also know that my preferred style of play belongs to a dying breed of old and musty gamers (such as myself)...
So, if a player is playing a super unique ninja that is really a circus performer who is really a secret agent that spies for the king; well, good luck finding another person that shares the same [unique] class as you in order to teach you your new level because:
This tutor must be of the same class and higher level than the one the character is training for.
If a player is playing a super unique ninja - that is the only class/job that needs training to level up. The circus gig is a cover, its not a class so doesn't require special training that a ninja would not normally get. More than likely the ninja is using ledge walker rogue talent for tight rope walking, or some other skill unique to ninja that can be showcased as a circus act such as shuriken thrower like a knife throwing act. Being a secret agent for the king is exactly what the ninja's job is - in Japan the primary activity of a ninja is not an assassin, rather its a spy. What I'm saying is that a ninja working as a circus performer while really being a secret agent for the king describes a typical ninja in the way a ninja normally operates - under cover as doing something else than being a spy/assassin, even though that's what he's actually doing.
You've just described a typical ninja, not a "special one". As long as your tutor is teaching you typical ninja only skills and abilities, you don't need anything other than typical ninja to gain new abilities and maintain your cover.
|
|
You've just described a typical ninja, not a "special one".
Yes but many who wish to re-skin a ninja are doing so to strip away the ninja fluff, thus making their character a generic "spy"...
My setting does not have a generic spy class, but if you want to create one, I can probably help you do it (or create a "spy" kit which might be a better fit than a full class would be).
You've just described a typical ninja, not a "special one".Yes but many who wish to re-skin a ninja are doing so to strip away the ninja fluff, thus making their character a generic "spy"...
You're missing the point. You stated that if a given class, pretending to do a certain job as a cover, while actually serving the king, implied that you'd require special training that a normal ninja tutor could not provide - because of the special circumstances this ninja was in - which I was responding as being completely untrue.
What has "re-skinning" a ninja got to do with that?
Many, I know, who want to play a generic spy, is simply doing so with a ninja (fluff kept intact.)
My setting does not have a generic spy class, but if you want to create one, I can probably help you do it (or create a "spy" kit which might be a better fit than a full class would be).
I played D&D 2e and used kits back then, but since the arrival of 3x/PF and more fully developed classes - I don't miss kits and 2e at all. Ninja fulfills "spy" far better than either the prestige class, or other altered flavors of rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who trained the trainer?
|
|
I agree with this. They are not the same game, but from past (anecdotal) experience, the definitions of 2nd edition can be successfully applied to 3rd edition and Pathfinder.
I'm sure you have. That doesn't mean that that's the correct thing to do or explains things well in-world.
I agree with this as well... In 2nd edition, if you want a character that can pick a lock as well as pick a pocket with any reasonable degree of success, then your choice is pretty limited, as these abilities are not "skills" available to all like they are in 3rd edition and Pathfinder.
Indeed. which means that anyone with some Craft and Disable Device can have a 'locksmith' profession without the need for a specific Rogue variant to do that. Which is sorta my point.
Here I have to disagree with you. As I've said earlier in this post, my experience has shown (even though it is totally anecdotal) that it can be done, and done successfully. When the editions changed (from 2nd to 3rd, and from 3rd to Pathfinder), I did not alter my views of the game, nor the style in which I ran it.
I realize that there are those that would not enjoy my gaming style or agree with my views of the game (or elements thereof). I also know that my preferred style of play belongs to a dying breed of old and musty gamers (such as myself)...
There are some verisimilitude issues with the training thing. Does the trainer need to have all the skills they raise higher than they do at higher ratings than them? Do they need to purchase Feats the trainer also knows? As Ashiel notes, who trained the trainer? Eventually, if you go back far enough, someone had to be first.
What if I want to play, say, a prodigy without meaningful training? Is that just not an existent thing in your world?
Or, heck, any spontaneous spellcaster? Having them need training to advance makes just about zero sense.
There are also verisimilitude issues with the ability of NPCs (or anyone) to clearly distinguish between more mundane classes. Spell-casters are clearly distinct in-world due to the nature of their spells, as are some Barbarians due to the nature of their Rage Powers...but everyone else? Not so much.
|
|
You're missing the point... ...What has "re-skinning" a ninja got to do with that?
Apparently, you missed my point.
If someone wants to play a ninja, as a ninja, I have no problem with that. But, if someone wants to play a ninja, because of all of the nifty abilities, but does not want all of the "baggage" (for lack of a better word) that is associated with the class, and therefore re-skins the class to remove all of the ninja fluff and the connections to anything remotely ninja related - Then I have a problem.
I played D&D 2e and used kits back then, but since the arrival of 3x/PF and more fully developed classes - I don't miss kits and 2e at all.
And after playing 3rd edition and Pathfinder for a combined 12/13 odd years, I missed the simplistic elegance of 2nd edition AD&D...
Ninja fulfills "spy" far better than either the prestige class, or other altered flavors of rogue.
Which is precisely why many want the class, but do not the "ninja" part that comes along with it.
|
|
Who trained the trainer?
Who invented the wheel, who was the first to use fire? It doesn't matter however, because it wasn't your character...
Even if you collaborate with me and create a new class or kit for my campaign setting, your character was not the first, and more than likely, nowhere near the first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree pretty much completely with Ashiel on this one. I understand where DigitalElf is coming from in terms of 2E, but much as I love the Archetype/Kit comparison, Pathfinder and 2E are not the same game, and are not designed with the same definitions in mind.
The very existence of skills as a meaningful and expanding thing profoundly alters the dynamic between Class and in-world Profession. And makes Class Abilities several orders of magnitude less essential in defining one's in-world role.
In short, applying the standards of 2E to Pathfinder in this area is inappropriate, and a mistake.
I agree, PF and 2e are completely different games. They are approached differently and handle different situations mechanically different in many situations.
That said, I don't think applying standards of 2e to pathfinder in this area is a mistake at all.
I think it is merely a different playstyle. I learned early on during my time here at these boards (I learned the hard way like others) that PAIZO respects all types of playstyles...and as such, this is just as valid a play style as any other play style gamers have on these boards.
It's not a mistake, but it may be a play style that you don't utilize.
Another playstyle that I think is MORE popular than these boards would make it seem, is that of using pre-made fluff. In fact, I feel (personal opinion, I have NO FACTS to back this up) that one of the reasons Paizo is so popular is because their fluff (via Golarion, Players Companions, Adventure Paths, Modules, and other areas) is enjoyed and liked by so many and sells so well.
In fact, I think fluff more than the rules has what brought Paizo to the forefront of the gaming scene (once again, personal opinion), but it's hardly a play style that is highlighted by many on the upper portions of these forums (as opposed to the sections lower down on these boards which directly address the campaign setting).
|
|
I'm sure you have. That doesn't mean that that's the correct thing to do or explains things well in-world.
Correct, incorrect... There is no such thing that applies to all in an RPG, especially in light of my experience to the contrary. What is incorrect for you, is correct for me...
Indeed. which means that anyone with some Craft and Disable Device can have a 'locksmith' profession without the need for a specific Rogue variant to do that. Which is sorta my point.
Though there are many reasons, this is a part of why I went back to playing 2nd edition AD&D.
There are some verisimilitude issues with the training thing. Does the trainer need to have all the skills they raise higher than they do at higher ratings than them? Do they need to purchase Feats the trainer also knows? As Ashiel notes, who trained the trainer? Eventually, if you go back far enough, someone had to be first.[
When I was playing 3e/PF, I did not require the character to find a trainer who shared the same skill/feat set, just the class. I did require that characters only add ranks in skills that they used, or spend some time learning a new skill or feat with someone who has the skill/feat (which is how things worked in 2nd edition, especially for thieves and bards).
As for "who trained the trainer", I already addressed that in my response to that post, but I'll add, chances are very good one would have to go back pretty far to find the first.
What if I want to play, say, a prodigy without meaningful training? Is that just not an existent thing in your world?
Or, heck, any spontaneous spellcaster? Having them need training to advance makes just about zero sense.
Sure, your character can start out as a "prodigy", but just like in real life, at some point, a prodigy needs training to help "focus" that talent. And even virtuosos, continuously train...
As for spontaneous spellcasters... All I can say is thank goodness 2nd edition does not have them! ;-)
However, requiring them to train does indeed make sense because training exposes them to new spells that they can try to emulate. And by having someone "better" than you are at what you do, helps you understand your abilities better, and hone them further, thereby making you better at what you do (like I said, even experts continuously train)
There are also verisimilitude issues with the ability of NPCs (or anyone) to clearly distinguish between more mundane classes. Spell-casters are clearly distinct in-world due to the nature of their spells, as are some Barbarians due to the nature of their Rage Powers...but everyone else? Not so much.
Verisimilitude is keeping things within the story (or in the case of RPGs), the setting, internally consistent with itself:
The semblance of reality in dramatic or nondramatic fiction. The concept implies that either the action represented must be acceptable or convincing according to the audience's own experience or knowledge or, as in the presentation of science fiction or tales of the supernatural, the audience must be enticed into willingly suspending disbelief and accepting improbable actions as true within the framework of the narrative.
Just because two fighters, for example, appear to be statistically identical to one another, does not break the suspension of disbelief (unless you are actively looking for it to be broken); because the two fighters are (presumably) two completely different individuals who look at and tackle problems in completely different ways from one another.
As always, YMMV...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You suggest a game where every character concept that hasn't been played before requires permission from the GM and development time spent on creating a unique class that's balanced with an increasingly massive roster.
I find that to be an impossible, inefficient method. For example, why should I create 1000 classes that can all only serve a single concept when I can just use 10 that each serve 100?
Also, as an aside out of curiosity, and I don't mean any offense, but why are you on Paizo's forums if you only play 2e? It's a fundamentally different game focused on giving the GM total control and putting player advocacy in a very narrow band of options, which is like, the exact opposite of what 3e and Pathfinder are about.
|
|
why are you on Paizo's forums if you only play 2e?
No offence taken...
I don't only play 2nd edition, it is just my "goto" game of choice.
That being said, this is the "Gamer Talk" area of the board, it is specifically for: "Non-game-specific talk about games and gaming".
These boards are not just for those that play Pathfinder.
I find that to be an impossible, inefficient method
It's not an impossible task for me, as I've done it plenty of times before (and to great effect)... As for being inefficient, well, fast and efficient is not always the best thing to do, especially if you enjoy the process.
It's a fundamentally different game focused on giving the GM total control and putting player advocacy in a very narrow band of options, which is like, the exact opposite of what 3e and Pathfinder are about.
As I stated in another post, despite being different games, I had continued to run my 3rd edition and Pathfinder games much as I had (and now do again) run my 2nd edition games with great success. It's like GreyWolfLord above wrote:
it is merely a different playstyle... ...and as such, this is just as valid a play style as any other play style gamers have on these boards.
As always, YMMV...
You're missing the point... ...What has "re-skinning" a ninja got to do with that?Apparently, you missed my point.
If someone wants to play a ninja, as a ninja, I have no problem with that. But, if someone wants to play a ninja, because of all of the nifty abilities, but does not want all of the "baggage" (for lack of a better word) that is associated with the class, and therefore re-skins the class to remove all of the ninja fluff and the connections to anything remotely ninja related - Then I have a problem.
there are many real world organizations throughout the world that were government spies just like ninja were. in fact, i see no problem with using the ninja class to represent those specific organizations that have very similar game mechanics
using Golarion as an example, the Chelexian Hellstalkers are a Canon Reskin of the Ninja. their Hellcat Fangs are canon reskins of the Wakazashi and well, they do all the same things as a ninja, except they model their chi powers after the styles of the hellcat, which is no different from a alternate martial arts style for brawlers. meaning since a ninja and hellstalker use all the same skills, one should be able to logically train the other and vice versa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the super crunch of Rolemaster. Surprisingly the consistency afforded to me by the heavy crunch allows considerable flexibility with the fluf. I suppose that is because I am confident with the system and know how to help players achive what they are looking for within the system.
I'm going to both agree and disagree. Making a new class for every different character concept seems pretty wasteful, but at the same time there aren't many classes that can fit an exceptionally wide spectrum of concepts without making some of them ineffectual compared to others. If you really want the freedom to create any concept, there are plenty of classless (and usually level-less) games that do that far better than any version of D&D. Part of the reason I play D&D at all is because I sometimes want the sort of limits that classes provide, and I really don't see any reason to remove those limits when that's the case.You suggest a game where every character concept that hasn't been played before requires permission from the GM and development time spent on creating a unique class that's balanced with an increasingly massive roster.
I find that to be an impossible, inefficient method. For example, why should I create 1000 classes that can all only serve a single concept when I can just use 10 that each serve 100?
When I need custom options for my game, I prefer to create an archetype rather than create a new class. However, sometimes, as Bluenose states, there are concepts that none of the existing classes fit easily.
I recently created a starship pilot class for a sci-fi PF home game, as there isn't any kind of a "driver" class I could convert. The mounted classes didn't fit, and I didn't want a full caster. So I built a new half-caster class, with progressive skills in operating starships from orbiting shuttles to interstellar fleets, evasive maneuvers and electronic countermeasures abilities, combat style (naval guns), progressing bonuses with a sidearm pistol, and some diplomacy/streetwise skills when dealing with starports (negotiating fees, cost for parts and fuel, finding work or goods to trade, etc.)
Many concepts don't need a full class of its own, like samurai (even though there is one), you can fit many classes to fulfill that role even though "samurai" isn't labeled anywhere on it. A ranger, barbarian, fighter, paladin, cavalier, magus, monk could all fit the concept samurai with some altered fluff and/or archetype treatment.
At the same time, I could see samurai reflavored as an elite palace guard in a more western analog - I like samurai better than cavaliers for the same role as knight.
I see nothing wrong with scribbling out the word "ninja" and writing in "commando", changing the words "ki points" to "tactical points", offer a different, but equivalent set of simple plus different and specific set of weapons accessable (instead of having to use the list of oriental weapons only). In every other way keeping the abilities of the ninja as is, primarily reflavoring the fluff and the mechanics names - is hardly more than changing clothes, and now it doesn't feel too Japanese (as its not everyone's schtick.)
I believe in options, not restrictions. Names and fluff shouldn't be restrictions for class concept.
|
|
since a ninja and hellstalker use all the same skills, one should be able to logically train the other and vice versa.
They could but I don't believe that they would... I can't speak of the Hellstalkers, as I never used them when I was playing Pathfinder and using Golarion, but I can speak of ninjas, and they are very secretive, clannish, and not very open to teaching their arts to outsiders.
It is very possible that the original Hellstalker was a ninja, and he adapted his styles, techniques, and abilities to better suit the Hellstalkers...
But in my games, especially now that I use 2nd edition AD&D, I would require them to be two separate classes that share a lot of similar skills and abilities, because a class to me, is not just the fluff OR the crunch, it is a mixture of both, and since both classes have different functions, their abilities would be similar but not exactly the same.
Thus, as I said, there would be two classes, and members of each class would need to receive training from another member of their class; though, I suppose, depending on exactly how close the two classes are to one another, that one could train the other in a pinch, if one found himself half-way around the world with no others that could train them, but that would in no way be an easy task as the character would have to 1). Find an NPC of the other class and 2). Convince that NPC to train them...
since a ninja and hellstalker use all the same skills, one should be able to logically train the other and vice versa.They could but I don't believe that they would... I can't speak of the Hellstalkers, as I never used them when I was playing Pathfinder and using Golarion, but I can speak of ninjas, and they are very secretive, clannish, and not very open to teaching their arts to outsiders.
It is very possible that the original Hellstalker was a ninja, and he adapted his styles, techniques, and abilities to better suit the Hellstalkers...
But in my games, especially now that I use 2nd edition AD&D, I would require them to be two separate classes that share a lot of similar skills and abilities, because a class to me, is not just the fluff OR the crunch, it is a mixture of both, and since both classes have different functions, their abilities would be similar but not exactly the same.
Thus, as I said, there would be two classes, and members of each class would need to receive training from another member of their class; though, I suppose, depending on exactly how close the two classes are to one another, that one could train the other in a pinch, if one found himself half-way around the world with no others that could train them, but that would in no way be an easy task as the character would have to 1). Find an NPC of the other class and 2). Convince that NPC to train them...
a lot of classes with similar skill sets could provide the required training in exchange for a proper favor. and there is also a great amount of self taught people, because there would be a point you run out of level appropriate trainers and have to start teaching yourself through trial and error
plus fantasy fiction is loaded with self taught swordsmen and the like if somebody didn't want to deal with a trainer and was willing to spend extra time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally I have no problem reskinning anything a player wants to.
A dwarf barbarian reskinned as a human sized treant works fine for me, though the one thing that might need changing is the character's Size and Speed/Movement. I like it.
|
|
fantasy fiction is loaded with self taught swordsmen and the like if somebody didn't want to deal with a trainer and was willing to spend extra time.
Training with a teacher can take a pretty long time:
The amount of time required depends on the instructor's Wisdom. Subtract the Wisdom score from 19. This is the minimum number of weeks the player character must spend in training--it takes his instructor this long to go through all the lessons and drills. At the end of this time, the player character makes an Intelligence or Wisdom check, whichever is higher.
If the check is successful, the lessons have been learned and the character can advance in level. If the check is failed, the character must spend another week in training. At the end of this time, another check is made, with a +1 applied to the character's Intelligence or Wisdom score. The results are the same as above, with each additional week spent in training giving another +1 to the character's ability score. This +1 is for the purpose of determining the success or failure of the check only. It is not permanent or recorded.
So, I make use of training schools and academies, which makes finding a teacher pretty easy (but at a higher cost than with a private teacher)...
But I do allow for self training. Basically using the system as above, I assign a flat 5 to represent the character's Wisdom score (just for the purposes of determining the length of training time), and then give a +1 bonus per point of Wisdom above 5; so if the character had a 15 Wisdom, that character's effective Wisdom is 10 for our purposes, thus it take the character a minimum of 9 weeks to train himself for a new level. So with this system, the minimum number of weeks it would take a character to self-train would be 6 weeks (and this would assume a maximum Wisdom score of 18)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, very few gameplay choices are more limiting and pointless than locking classes into their "official" fluff.
Having to be a Rogue to play a sneaky scoundrel or having to be a Ranger to be a woodsman is... Well... one of the more restrictive and unimaginative ways of playing the game.
Not saying it's wrong to play that way... But I wouldn't touch that game with a 10ft-pole (Well... Unless I was playing something tongue-in-cheek, like an OotS campaign).
|
|
Having to be a Rogue to play a sneaky scoundrel or having to be a Ranger to be a woodsman is... Well... one of the more restrictive and unimaginative ways of playing the game.
Having played 3rd edition and then Pathfinder for a combined total of 12-13 years, I can see why you would think that.
For me, I began to see that I didn't need all the options in the world in order to offer the type of game I wanted to run or play. I didn't need my wizards to be good at tracking, or my fighters to be able to sneak around unseen... But then, I also never stopped viewing the classes as professions (e.g. it was the rogue's job to scout ahead, it was the ranger's job to track the enemy, it was the... You get the idea).
This did not stop me however, from designing a new class or more often than not, a new kit to fulfill a role that was not represented by one of the full classes I had available.
I never felt restricted, nor do I feel restricted having returned to an earlier edition.
YMMV...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having to be a Rogue to play a sneaky scoundrel or having to be a Ranger to be a woodsman is... Well... one of the more restrictive and unimaginative ways of playing the game.Having played 3rd edition and then Pathfinder for a combined total of 12-13 years, I can see why you would think that.
Please, don't bring gaming time into the subject. It means basically nothing. I don't think that's what you're doing here, but using gaming time as a cheap appeal to authority doesn't carry any weight (we've had our fill of posters trying to play that card, and it never helps their case).
For me, I began to see that I didn't need all the options in the world in order to offer the type of game I wanted to run or play. I didn't need my wizards to be good at tracking, or my fighters to be able to sneak around unseen... But then, I also never stopped viewing the classes as professions (e.g. it was the rogue's job to scout ahead, it was the ranger's job to track the enemy, it was the... You get the idea).
Having a tracker Wizard or sneaky Fighter is not what I'm talking about. What I dislike is the fact that the world is created as if characters had a neon sign on their head telling the world what they are. For me, classes are nothing but a pack of abilities. Profession is what the character does for money. e.g.: If your character kills people for a living she's an assassin. It doesn't matter what class she uses. She doesn't need the Assassin PrC to assassinate people for money. Similarly, a player that assumes an sneaky assassin has levels in the Assassin class is jumping to a lot of conclusions.
What can I say... Class is not concept. Concept is not class. One of them is just a bunch of mechanics (that hopefully can satisfyingly represent the character concept that inspired the class in the first place). The other is the background, personality and other role-playing characteristics that a player has for his character. That's why I generally use capitals to indicate I'm talking about classes (e.g.: Witch) and lower case to indicate I'm talking about the character concept (e.g.: witch).
e.g.: Let's say I want to play a guy who is a bastion of good with a strict moral code, trained in martial combat, gifted with holy powers and a fierce sense of justice... I could play a Paladin (which, fortunately, is a good class to represent the concept)... But I could also play LG Cleric. Or a LG Oracle of Battle...
All of those are equally valid choices. And allowing more classes to fill multiple roles (rather than limiting them to specific concepts or limiting concepts to specific classes) increases character variety and encourages player creativity.
I'd be really annoyed if my player said I have to be a Paladin to play a holy warrior of Good... Or that I had be a Barbarian to play a warrior of the wilds who doesn't trust magic and civilization... That's a game I simply wouldn't be willing to play.
|
|
don't bring gaming time into the subject. It means basically nothing.
I disagree; the meaning is entirely dependent upon the usage. Using it while thumping your chest, saying; "Well, I've been playing for 30 years, so I can tell you for a fact that blah blah blah..." is a usage that would be meaningless IMHO.
My usage of it was to illustrate a point of possible empathy with your point.
What I dislike is the fact that the world is created as if characters had a neon sign on their head telling the world what they are.
And I don't see that as the case.
Does it simulate or even emulate real life? Not entirely, but this game, Dungeons & Dragons (and by extension, Pathfinder), is not about replicating real life. It is a class-based system, and to me, that means the characters, after having chosen their class are pigeon-holed into a specific role, and I do not find that to be in any way, shape or form, to be a negative in a class-based system; I expect it.
In a system like Chaosium's BRP, which is skill-based, I don't have that same view, because in that game, my character is not pigeon-holed into anything...
It is two entirely different playing styles for me.
Profession is what the character does for money.
And adventurers usually get paid (in some manner) for what they do.
The rogue is responsible for finding the traps, picking the locks, scouting ahead, etc. The warrior is responsible for going toe-to-toe with the enemy, protecting the weaker members of the group, etc., etc...If your character kills people for a living she's an assassin. It doesn't matter what class she uses. She doesn't need the Assassin PrC to assassinate people for money.
I didn't buy that when TSR used it as an excuse to pull the Assassin class in 2nd edition, and I don't buy it now...
YES, absolutely, anyone can kill someone for money, but that does not make them an assassin any more than me taking biology in high school makes me a biologist.
Similarly, a player that assumes an sneaky assassin has levels in the Assassin class is jumping to a lot of conclusions.
I can agree with that, but I think it is a good assumption to make (especially in a class based system), as it is better to prepare for the worst by being prepared for almost anything, than assuming otherwise.
What can I say... Class is not concept. Concept is not class. One of them is just a bunch of mechanics (that hopefully can satisfyingly represent the character concept that inspired the class in the first place). The other is the background, personality and other role-playing characteristics that a player has for his character.
I've said in another post that a class to me, is not just the fluff OR the crunch, it is a mixture of both.
I'd be really annoyed if my player said I have to be a Paladin to play a holy warrior of Good... Or that I had be a Barbarian to play a warrior of the wilds who doesn't trust magic and civilization... That's a game I simply wouldn't be willing to play.
I don’t see any of your examples as needing to re-skin or even re-visualize any of the existing classes.
For example, in 2nd edition, you can choose the thief class and still be from a barbarian tribe that distrusts magic; because that's where you're from, but you still CHOSE to be a thief by "profession" amongst your people (and that may or may not cause problems, but that's another topic)...
Playing a character that kills for money, or is a holy warrior of good (and not specifically a Paladin), and a warrior of the wild who does not trust magic, are ways that you can play your character, regardless of class, it's just that the existing classes do those things much better.
But what you cannot do (at least IMHO), is choose the barbarian class for example, remove the "man of the wild" connections, make him "civilized", rename the class "Elite Soldier", and explain his rage as is his ability to focus his concentration while on the field of battle.
Conversely, there is nothing stopping a character with the barbarian class from being recruited by the king and assigned as his personal bodyguard, but in such an instance, he is still a barbarian.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what you cannot do (at least IMHO), is choose the barbarian class for example, remove the "man of the wild" connections, make him "civilized", rename the class "Elite Soldier", and explain his rage as is his ability to focus his concentration while on the field of battle.
Why? You didn't give a reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what you cannot do (at least IMHO), is choose the barbarian class for example, remove the "man of the wild" connections, make him "civilized", rename the class "Elite Soldier", and explain his rage as is his ability to focus his concentration while on the field of battle.
Of course you can, and you gave a great example. Let's say this elite soldier with proper training can temporarily increase his levels of adrenaline to give him bonuses to attack and temporary hit points, give him a bonus to will and consequent reduction in armor class. Perhaps some of the more exotic rage powers cannot be invoked, but a GM would limit which rage powers can be selected. As an elite commando this "barbarian/civilized soldier" has fast movement, thus is limited to medium armor - there's nothing about the barbarian in its abilities that cannot easily fit the concept of elite soldier. As stated great example.
I actually plan to use barbarians reflavored as genetically engineered human super soldiers grown in a lab, not born on some wilderness region for a sci-fi Pathfinder setting I'm working on.
It works and is very sensible.
|
|
Why? You didn't give a reason.
The short answer (which I have stated many times in this thread), is that I do not allow the re-skinning of classes in my games.
In the post you quoted from, I say:
this game, Dungeons & Dragons (and by extension, Pathfinder), is not about replicating real life. It is a class-based system, and to me, that means the characters, after having chosen their class are pigeon-holed into a specific role
I dislike re-skinning classes because I think that in a class-based system, the classes are not only an integral part of the game, but an important one, and I think that just re-skinning as needed lessens their importance. It is my opinion that if you cannot do what you want to do using one of the existing classes, make a new one that does (or just make a kit if what you want to do doesn't require an entire class).
Well, the books specifically call out the idea of a "civilized" barbarian. So not even the books support your assumptions. There is nothing stopping a character from being a "holy warrior" and being the slayer class. In fact, the iconic slayer is that.
Classes are meta concepts. They aren't literal professions. Just, as someone said, a group of skills.