|
GreyWolfLord, flagged for abuse.
I'm a PhD candidate in Immunology, in my 3rd year of a 5-6 year program, at the end of which I'll need to spend at least 3-5 years as a postdoctoral fellow if I want to work in academia. That's longer than an MD and residence takes, at least in Canada. I bet the postdocs in my lab who have spent 8+ years learning an advanced field that doesn't happen to be medicine would love to hear they're "some stupid degree who is so puffed up in their importance." As would my boss and my mother.
But the fluff is Important...because without that acknowledgedment...it doesn't matter how many or how much of a skill set you have...the church will never recognize you and you will have no real power (at that time). In fact, you could possibly be executed as a heretic eventually if you continue to claim the skills (even if you have them), but the church states that you do not.
And if you call yourself a member of the church of X when you haven't gone through the training required of a member of the church of X, you deserve the roleplaying consequences of that roleplaying decision.
But that is independent of whether you have levels in the cleric class.
I've already explained why your modern day real world examples are silly. Back before a degree was necessary, or even recognized, all you needed to be a doctor was the knowledge and skill. Same scenario here.
Please, explain to me why you need someone to be called "Rogue" when you need someone to pick a lock, or smash someone over the head?
Why does it matter, as long as they can do what you need them to do?
Why do you need someone with the title "Fighter" to wade into battle in heavy armor swinging a greatsword?
You have written a hell of a lot of useless text on the subject that relies on the assumption that Pathfinder somehow runs on modern day value on degrees, and classes are somehow tied to background even where said background is NOT implied in fluff text (Clerics are not stated to be priest and clergy-men exclusively, quite the opposite in fact, and don't even have to serve a god).
Well, what context do you put it in.
The samurai were specific, and not a generic skill set. You were RAISED as a Samurai, learning more than just combat, but the traditions and honors that your family had as well as the traditions and culture of nobility. You literally WERE trained to be a Samurai.
You couldn't just simply become a Samurai...and to proclaim yourself one without the right geneology and training...you might as well count yourself as executed before you even got out of the crowd.
Which means PF doesn't run on ANY HISTORICAL relevance, much less modern day if you are going by that qualification.
Of course, in PF, you can just multiclass into a Samurai...HOWEVER...it is in the GM's purvue that you have to have some reason or justification for it...
Why or how did you suddenly become a Samurai?
RAW of course, you are absolutely right. UNLIKE 3e or 3.5, there aren't really those restrictions that I just listed above. They changed them (from what I can tell). In 3.X the DM could ask what the justification for the change was, have you train, or other items.
In that instance, you could say you came from a Noble family of Samurai previously, and in your younger years trained and was brought up, but later decided that you would evade family responsibilities and become something else...or that you were the younger brother, and though trained, forwent all of that as the younger brother to train as another class.
However, though that could be pertinent in 3e and 3.5, PF IS A DIFFERENT GAME...and as a different game than D&D...I will recognize things are different.
But that ignores what I was stating already in the thread. I am not necessarily posting that Class as a set thing is the ONLY way to play or even that I PLAY that way...but trying to portray that it IS A LEGIT style of play....
AS such, I can perfectly understand how someone would see classes as far more strong than simply a skill set.
Once again, I agree, PF is NOT D&D and IS a separate game. People many times see them as similar (for what I hope is obvious reasons) and many of the items from 3e or 3.5 are carried over, even if they are no longer in PF rules. PF explicitly (as far as I know) does NOT put these limitations on the players or gives them as an option to the GMs, hence MC is inherently a LOT easier to do in PF than it was in D&D.
With PF being a different game and not the same game as D&D though, there are different qualifications...but one rule still stays the same, which is rule 0.
The other item however, that I think is pertinent, is if you consider fluff a waste of space, or if you think it is part of the Core Rules.
If you think it actually part of the CRB...and then RAW (afterall, if fluff is NOT RAW, then you have to discard the entirety of the MC portion of the rules anyways to a degree as it is 99% fluff with no real numbers behind it), the fluff would indicate classes are FAR more than simply skill sets (though in theory they would be played as such with the RAW via the fluff in the MC portion), then a Rogue is something distinct and separate than another class.
In that light, though it's not a piece of paper as per what we use in modern terms, it is some sort of recognition of what a Rogue is...vs. let's say...a Bard with similar skills. That's what gives them the authority to say what they are or be what they are...
Of course, since that's not really defined in the fluff (unless you want to count guilds and such occasionally, or elite organizations sometimes as per the prestige classes and other things)...that is more falling under the DM's arena of ruling than anything else.
I think some don't like the fluff because they feel it empowers the GM instead of the players, and some players don't like the GM being able to use rule 0.
PS: Of course, that's being easy on players...a GM can technically restrict players according to what the GM wants in their campaign as per rule 0...in which case they can make FAR more restrictions and changes if it's not PFS.
Of course, on these boards one would think that's a horrific idea, but I find it's not all that unusual IRL.
Well, what context do you put it in.The samurai were specific, and not a generic skill set. You were RAISED as a Samurai, learning more than just combat, but the traditions and honors that your family had as well as the traditions and culture of nobility. You literally WERE trained to be a Samurai.
You couldn't just simply become a Samurai...and to proclaim yourself one without the right geneology and training...you might as well count yourself as executed before you even got out of the crowd.
This thread also deals with 'Do I need levels in Samuraii to claim the title' though too.
If you want to roleplay that some Asian emperor was impressed by you and grant you the nobility needed for the class... that's legit. It's not RAW, but it's legit.
But the question is Do I have to take the Cavalier alternate class NAMED Samuraii? Because honestly, I think that class kind of sucks.
That one came out in Ultimate Combat and never actually impressed me much. None of my friends either. I have one friend playing a samurai character just using the Base Cavalier class and she's doing awesome.
I came up with a couple cool ideas just using the base the Fighter class before the APG came out with the Cavalier!! The 'fluff' of the class is about honor and loyalty and Asian weapons... not so much JUST the mechanics involved with that one Feat Chain...
As the game evolves and more options become available, I'm not a fan of DM's FORCING you to take certain Class/Alternate Classes/Archtypes JUST to make your concept come to life.
The Fighter Archtype: Archer makes a pretty decent archer. The Figher Base Class can ALSO make a pretty sweet Archer. The Ranger class can make a kick-butt Archer... ANY of those can be called an 'archer' walking down the street... Not JUST the guy with Archer Archtype...
|
The Ranger class can make a kick-butt Archer...
And while you can re-skin the Ranger and make an "Archer" class (or call a Ranger "just" an archer), the point that I am trying to make (and I am pretty sure that GreyWolfLord is trying to make as well), is that doing so cheapens the class you are re-skinning (or re-naming), and makes classes less important; which I think is a bad thing to do in an a class-based game system.
I can't speak for GreyWolfLord, but I feel that while it may be harder, and take longer than to just re-skin a class if you cannot make your character concept fit within the structure of one of the pre-existing classes, it is better and more fulfilling to use the rules already set in place for creating a new character class (be it a full class with 20 levels, or just a prestige class with fewer levels).
But like I've said, that's just my opinion on the matter...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Asked of the general thread and not any specific participants...)
There's no class in Pathfinder called "Pirate", so in the meantime, you're using either a Rogue or a Fighter (depending on what you want your pirate to be able to do; I'm pretty sure both have pirate-y archetypes to give you the sorts of skills and abilities that make sense for a pirate).
Next year, they release a book with the Pirate class. What happens to your pirate? Does he transmute into another class? Inexplicably forget how to do certain things and gain other abilities from out of the blue?
Granted this makes sense in Order of the Stick...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Ranger class can make a kick-butt Archer...And while you can re-skin the Ranger and make an "Archer" class (or call a Ranger "just" an archer), the point that I am trying to make (and I am pretty sure that GreyWolfLord is trying to make as well), is that doing so cheapens the class you are re-skinning (or re-naming), and makes classes less important; which I think is a bad thing to do in an a class-based game system.
We have reached the height of stupidity.
"Rangers can't use bows. It cheapens the Fighter's Archer archetype."
*facepalms*
(Asked of the general thread and not any specific participants...)
There's no class in Pathfinder called "Pirate", so in the meantime, you're using either a Rogue or a Fighter (depending on what you want your pirate to be able to do; I'm pretty sure both have pirate-y archetypes to give you the sorts of skills and abilities that make sense for a pirate).
Next year, they release a book with the Pirate class. What happens to your pirate? Does he transmute into another class? Inexplicably forget how to do certain things and gain other abilities from out of the blue?
This touches on my biggest issue with taking a "mechanical class = in world label" approach.
To me, tying the two together makes sense when it comes to Paladins, clerics, monks, samurais, ninjas or even wizards, Druids and Rangers - basically with any class where it's conceivable that the special, secret training required is controlled by some powerful cabal. It's harder to justify as a genuine barrier in other, less structured situations though - the Kings archer regiment could have characters from many different classes.
I think tight controls on classes in this way only really make sense in a campaign comfortable with restrictions and where those restrictions are spelt out with some in game logic. I don't think its a right or wrong thing, I think it's a fun or not fun thing (and hence subjective).
|
|
We have reached the height of stupidity.
"Rangers can't use bows. It cheapens the Fighter's Archer archetype."
*facepalms*
Where the heck did you get that from!?
Character classes can share similar skills and abilities without stepping on each other's toes (and I never said otherwise), but to focus only upon one skill or ability of a class at the exclusion of the other skills and/or abilities does cheapen that class...
A fighter specializing in the bow (either through the available archetype or through weapon specialization) has no effect on the ranger's affinity with a bow (and vise versa). But the ranger is more than just an archer, and to simply call a ranger "just" an archer, or equate him with a straight fighter that specializes with a bow (thus forgetting those other skills and abilities the ranger possesses), is to cheapen the ranger class... THAT is what I said!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"a person who shoots with a bow and arrows, especially at a target for sport."
That is not a class, nor a character archetype, nor anything else besides a skill (not even a skill SET, just a singular skill).
"Archer" literally means "dude who shoots a bow".
By saying the Ranger cannot call himself an archer, you're either saying he can't use a bow, or he for some reason is dumb as a brick and forgot the word he should be calling his area of combat expertise.
It's simply asinine and unnecessary. What could it POSSIBLY add to the game to prevent the Ranger from calling himself an archer? Or a warrior?
Why does a Ranger need only refer to himself as a Ranger?
Seriously, why?
WHY?
This whole concept just baffles me.
Why does it f%&~ing matter to you, or anyone else, what someone calls their character?
|
|
Why does it f%##ing matter to you, or anyone else, what someone calls their character?
Why the hostility?
This is a message board, and last time I checked, those were meant as an exchange of ideas and a place where people of like or similar interests can get together and talk about those shared likes and interests.
Thus far (like virtually everyone else here) I have only been stating my opinion, and the way I like to play and view the game, and when someone comes along and either twists my words into something that I did not say, mean, or intend, or takes them the wrong way or out of context I come back (just like virtually everyone else on these boards does) and clarify what I actually said, or meant...
|
|
Why does a Ranger need only refer to himself as a Ranger?
For me, personally, the answer is because I view classes similar to professions or careers...
I see them this way, not only because that is how classes are viewed in 2nd edition, but because IRL, when someone is asked: "Hey, what do you do?"
More often than not, in my experience, the answer is: "I AM a Biologist!" (or whatever it is that they do for a living), and is seldom answered: "I work in biology."
Your experience may be different than that...
Most people I know do not define themselves by a single aspect of their personality or life.
When asked "Who are you?" a person may answer "A biologist".
Or they may answer "A hunter", "An avid reader", "A gamer", "A historian", or any number of other things.
Very few things are mutually exclusive.
Ranger and archer likewise are not.
If you make your living patroling the woods, you may be a Ranger. Or a woodsman. Or a guardsman who happens to patrol the woods.
If you defend yourself by using a bow, maybe you will still call yourself one of those things. Or an archer. Or even something else.
To do otherwise is to make your characters two dimensional, at best. If only one facet of their personality matters, and you're specifically disallowing them from referring to themselves by any other appellation they may choose, you're actively discouraging actually roleplaying a CHARACTER, not just playing a class.
All of the groups I currently DM/play in view classes as the mechanics and fill in the fluff as we want (latest character is a Ronin that uses class levels in warpriest actually with the magic flavored as kata and sword techniques). It works well and we have a lot of fun with it. Doing otherwise seems odd and silly to me but to each group their own.
|
|
Very few things are mutually exclusive.
You're absolutely right, people are much more than just their profession, career or singular skill, hobby, or other interests, and this is true of characters within the game as well. But the game is a simplified version of real life, where one can choose to be a professional fighter, wizard, archer, ranger (and in my games, rangers usually refer to themselves as "woodsmen"), or whatever class they choose. And so this makes a character's chosen class much more important and an actual part of who he is in my games.
Characters in my games (or characters that I play when I get the chance to) are far from two-dimensional, they possess other skills and abilities, but they just happen to have "careers" that do not really exist IRL.
So when asked, "What do you do?", characters in my games usually answer according to their chosen class or class group (e.g. a fighter might say: "I am a warrior" instead of saying "fighter"). Players are free to answer the question however they wish; it's just that classes in my games are similar to what we, IRL, refer to as professions or careers...
In my games, academies, schools, and universities exist that cater to and train the more prominent classes (i.e. the base four and other major classes), as well as individual NPCs, and smaller, more private organizations for the more niche classes (though there are NPCs that train the base four as well, so a PC does not have to go to one of the much more expensive schools if he does not want to).
I hope that this better illustrates how I view the classes and their roles within my campaign settings...
|
|
so how do characters tell the the classes apart in game.
You ask the person (but that person is not obliged to answer truthfully however).
Though in my games, because I play 2nd edition, there are more subtle "tells" than exist in other editions just by what armor a character is wearing or what weapon he is wielding because the skill system is different in 2nd edition, and feats just do not exist; it's not always an accurate assumption, but it is a decent enough starting reference (i.e. it is better to assume that mace wielding enemy coming towards you is capable of casting spells than to assume he can't and then get blind-sided when he does start casting spells at you)...
And yes, that thought process can back-fire occasionally when that leather armor wearing, dagger or short sword wielding fighter comes along that you assumed was "just" a thief.
But it is, as they say, "close enough for government work".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when asked, "What do you do?", characters in my games usually answer according to their chosen class or class group (e.g. a fighter might say: "I am a warrior" instead of saying "fighter"). Players are free to answer the question however they wish; it's just that classes in my games are similar to what we, IRL, refer to as professions or careers...
My group is usually the same. I suspect its due to how we first learned to play the game. Those that started off in Basic or AD&D tend to treat classes as a way of life, where as those that started in 3.0+ tend to view classes as a collection of abilities/skills.
Personally, if I wanted to do the collection of skills route (which I have at times), I'd prefer to use a classless system that allows me to pick and choose whatever abilities/skills I want. Then I add my own description/explanation for why I have those abilities/skills.
I recall a game where the GM had each player keep the true nature of their PC a secret. I stated that my character was a thief, which was true, its just he was not a rogue, rather a sorcerer. All of his spell choices were things useful for a thief, like knock, grease, levitate, unseen servant, disguise self...
Personally, if I wanted to do the collection of skills route (which I have at times), I'd prefer to use a classless system that allows me to pick and choose whatever abilities/skills I want. Then I add my own description/explanation for why I have those abilities/skills.
That's how I treat my characters whether in a class-based system or not. A classless system gives me greater control over what abilities or traits my character has at the expense of the overall collection not being as well balanced against other characters of similar level/base-point-cost/whatever the system calls it. A class system (theoretically) makes sure your character has the same game/narrative impact as any other character but at the cost of not being able to entirely express what I want my character to do.
But I'm always using my own explanation for how one of my characters is able to do whatever, and it's only if I don't have or don't bother to create such an explanation that I'll look at the class description. I don 't see the need to limit myself.
|
|
A biologist is more than just a scientist, and to call a biologist a scientist cheapens the notion of my profession!"
That's just splitting hairs! I have spent the last 3 pages providing explanations of how I view character classes, and why I view them the way that I do.
But if you really do what me to answer that, I'll be more than happy to do so...
|
|
Huh, you actually manage to keep mutually exclusive sets of equipment for every class
It's not that difficult. Every class except the warrior classes have very limited weapons and armor available that they can use, and the limited number of weapon proficiencies available to each character (warrior classes included) limits the number of weapons a character can use even further; with custom classes are no different... And as for multi-class characters, even combined, the available weapons and armor they can use is still very limited.
|
|
and the limited number of weapon proficiencies available to each character (warrior classes included) limits the number of weapons a character can use even further;
That doesn't make it any easier for someone trying to determine the class of a character in-game. If the fighter and the thief have both taken proficiency in light blades, it doesn't matter that the fighter could have taken proficiency in axes and the thief couldn't have. The observable fact is that both the fighter and the thief are good at using light blades. In fact, if characters are only proficient with some of the weapons their class allows it makes it harder to tell them apart. In PF if you toss a rapier fighter and a rogue an axe, the fighter will be proficient and the rogue won't be. In 2E that may not be the case.
with custom classes are no different...
If you make a custom class that has the same weapon and armour proficiencies as a thief, but can cast spells, characters in your world must now contend with the fact that a person wearing "thief" gear may be a spellcaster. The more classes there are, the more likely classes are to share observable abilities, and the harder it is to identify a class based on in-game observables.
As you said earlier, the risk of occasionally being wrong doesn't mean people will stop stereotyping. But it does mean you have to ask yourself at what point the difference between a lightly-armoured ranger and a good-aligned fighter/thief with track proficiency (or whatever) becomes unrecognizable in-game.
Or, using PF, we may have a character who came from a family of wizards and enrolled in a wizard academy himself. Despite not being as bright generally as his siblings and having little patience for dusty tomes, he discovered a bit of talent for arcana and finally mastered first level spells, scribing scrolls, and summoning a familiar. He graduated from the academy and considers himself a wizard. However, he skims his spellbook and usually finds himself "improvising" his favourite spells. The character is a sorcerer (arcane bloodline) by class. Will anybody notice, or care?
2e and Pathfinder are not the same system nor are they designed with the same approach. and if you can easily steriotype a character based on the equipment they carry, what you have is a rather poorly designed game where every 2 dimensional character with the same skillset has the exact same personality, alignment, equipment and stats
the 2e spellcloak was a wizard kit that lowered its spell aquisition down to 7th level spells, but gained thief skills as if it were a 1e assassin, gained cleric Thaco, gained thief weapon, armor and skill proficiences and gained a special 1st level boon where there attack and damage rolls with daggers and daggerlike weapons treated their effective strength score as being equal to their intelligence score. it was a class from a book on faeries that included new faerie races and classes toned down for PC use and any of them, as well as elves, half elves and humans could be a spellcloak
plus, humans could take unlimited levels in it. it required a minimum of 17 intelligence 15 dexterity, 15 charisma and 13 wisdom to qualify and the faerie races all had bonuses to either dexterity, intelligence or charisma with a penalty to either strength or constitution and generally benefitted from the d8 of the spellcloak
if anything, it was just a class that gained 7th level spells from the wizard/magic user list but nothing else from the wizard while being primarily a 1e assassin with the ability to cast their spells without needing to use words and gestures. a very front loaded class. if they met the strength requirements, they could also wear and cast in chain and everything lighter, but they usually stuck to padded, leather, or no armor at all and generally, they carried a dagger because they got static accuracy and damage bonuses from a high intelligence.
it is recorded in one of my hand me down 1e and 2e books. i beleive it is called the complete book of faeries and was written by TSR. the book included a lot of arcane hybrid classes that were like multiclass kits and the faerie races weren't too bad unless you built them around the classes in the book. which actually tried to be unique
i have a lot of the obscure splatbooks. i just don't use them because very few people have them, so i mine them for concepts to translate over to savage worlds.
but the complete book of faeries introduced a lot of X stat to Y bonus nonweapon proficiencies for classes that wanted things like weapon finesse or cunning precision, most of which were literally built to have melee thieves and wizards without needing as many high stats.
but time to close the derail. what stops a spellcloak from calling themselves an assassin, hellstalker or ninja? since all 4 are supernaturally gifted, sneaky and likely to kill from concealment by using dirty tricks and the like
|
|
i beleive it is called the complete book of faeries and was written by TSR.
You'll have to double-check on that name, because there was no "Complete book of Fairies" published by TSR for 1st or 2nd edition. But Mayfair Games and Judges Guild published many titles that were compatible with both editions of AD&D, so it might have been one of their products...
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
I did not even see this, but I never knew Paladin was where that came from, but I am talking of in-game, which there are no core muslims or christians. :)
(Asked of the general thread and not any specific participants...)
There's no class in Pathfinder called "Pirate", so in the meantime, you're using either a Rogue or a Fighter (depending on what you want your pirate to be able to do; I'm pretty sure both have pirate-y archetypes to give you the sorts of skills and abilities that make sense for a pirate).
Next year, they release a book with the Pirate class. What happens to your pirate? Does he transmute into another class? Inexplicably forget how to do certain things and gain other abilities from out of the blue?
Granted this makes sense in Order of the Stick...
I was hoping someone would answer this. :)
Without having to go back through a couple hundred posts... what is this debate about class names about and why is it relevant to fluff vs crunch?
Without having to go back through a couple hundred posts... what is this debate about class names about and why is it relevant to fluff vs crunch?
Mostly a single poster, DigitalElf, who primarily uses 2e and not PF, but is convinced that fluff has to be hard-wired to every class, as if the fluff was what really mattered. Even though the majority of other posters (all relying on PF and not 2e) say that the crunch is the important thing and that one can easily change the fluff to apply to different class concepts while relying on existing crunch. Just about everyone in this thread is open to the idea, except DigitalElf - and many (like myself) don't believe he even belongs in the conversation. (Strangely, though DigitalElf is not the starter of this thread, his posts dominate - almost a third of the posts are his...)
The edition war stuff really is irrelevant to the conversation though. 2E or PF doesn't REALLY make a difference. As this is a generic 'gamer talk' forum his opinions are worth hearing.
Personally, I play both Pathfinder AND 2E... and we have refluffed the mechanics in BOTH editions. His 'Class = professional title' mentality is not hardwired into any particular system. It's just his way of playing. And really, The OP question of 'do you require the class to play the role' is an interesting question and I'm enjoying seeing some of the responses. Even the ones I don't agree with and wouldn't play.
For example, I have a fairly strict definition of 'fantasy' that I like to play in. Gunslingers/guns have no purpose there. Asian culture doesn't either. Ninjas? Shadowy assassin types that rely on stealth, poision, and hand to hand combat?? Yeah, I can work that concept into my world. They aren't "NINJA".... but the mechanics can be refluffed to be any kind of shadowy assassin type.
I'm fine with 2e, and have no "edition war" intent with my post. The issue is that DigitalElf claims his requirements to keeping the fluff as is, as being enforced by 2e, so should be equally enforced PF, even though I don't agree that 2e works that way. I played 2e for 10 years and it never worked that specific way.
I think that DigitalElf is entitled to his opinion, but shouldn't try to respond to every poster with an insistence on his way is the right, and only way to maintain classes.
I can say, that when I prefer standard fantasy, I indeed leave out guns and other themes including the orient. That said, I am the primary developer and owner of the IP for the Rite Publishing Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) which is kind of a cross between Ravenloft and Oriental Adventures, but set in a specifically Japan-analog setting called Kaidan. So I'm not averse to including samurai and ninja in my game. In fact, I've created oriental version archetypes of ranger, magus, paladin, 4 samurai archetypes, 2 rogues, fighter, bard, 2 wizard archetypes and 3 prestige classes with more coming soon; specific racial class options for kappa, hengeyokai and tengu.
I'm fine with 2e, and have no "edition war" intent with my post. The issue is that DigitalElf claims his requirements to keeping the fluff as is, as being enforced by 2e, so should be equally enforced PF, even though I don't agree that 2e works that way. I played 2e for 10 years and it never worked that specific way.
I think that DigitalElf is entitled to his opinion, but shouldn't try to respond to every poster with an insistence on his way is the right, and only way to maintain classes.
I can say, that when I prefer standard fantasy, I indeed leave out guns and other themes including the orient. That said, I am the primary developer and owner of the IP for the Rite Publishing Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) which is kind of a cross between Ravenloft and Oriental Adventures, but set in a specifically Japan-analog setting called Kaidan. So I'm not averse to including samurai and ninja in my game. In fact, I've created oriental version archetypes of ranger, magus, paladin, 4 samurai archetypes, 2 rogues, fighter, bard, 2 wizard archetypes and 3 prestige classes with more coming soon; specific racial class options for kappa, hengeyokai and tengu.
It's a matter of preference. The more 'earth culture' specific things that get put in a setting, the less 'fantasy' it feels to me. I know I'm in the minority there, even among my own group.
LOTS of anime fans there, so i'm sure your Japanese horror setting would probably appeal to them ;)
Heck, if that was the whole point of the game, 'Japanese horror' than i'd probably jump on it too. I just don't like when we end up with people talking about how 'real life' samurai society was founded and therefore your characters MUST be locked in etc. etc....
Basically the stuff we've seen in this thread ;)
Heck, if that was the whole point of the game, 'Japanese horror' than i'd probably jump on it too. I just don't like when we end up with people talking about how 'real life' samurai society was founded and therefore your characters MUST be locked in etc. etc....
Basically the stuff we've seen in this thread ;)
Kaidan is not necessarily very applicable to anime themes, rather it strictly based on 19th century and older Japanese horror themes - as in the works of Kiozumi Yagumo, with inclusions of a twisted form of reincarnation and the Buddhist Wheel of Life. It is very much a horror setting in Japan, and actually quite dark. A great emphasis has been placed on authenticity of culture, history, and folklore.
Heck, Paizo liked my work so much, they had me write portions of the City of Kasai gazetteer as well as designing the original hand-drawn map to the city of Kasai, for The Empty Throne module of the Jade Regent adventure path - so I'm a published contributing author for Paizo as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that DigitalElf is entitled to his opinion, but shouldn't try to respond to every poster with an insistence on his way is the right, and only way to maintain classes.
This is the second time you have put words into my posts that I never typed, or even alluded to (the first was when you said the players at my table were insisting that I let them play a re-skinned ninja, when the examples I used were pulled out of thin air, and was in no way a reflection of my game table). I have not said once that my play-style is the correct or even the only way to play the game.
But I believe that I am correct in that the fluff IS hardwired into the RAW of 2nd edition:
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
This is further backed up by the sheer number of kits that were published during 2nd edition's life-time (and kits, while similar, are not the same as prestige classes).
As for my participation in this thread, this is the generic "Gamer Talk" area of the board and the discussion of class crunch vs. class fluff transcends edition.
Oh, and for the record, for a third of the posts in this thread to be from me, I would have had to of posted an additional 30 or so more times in the thread than I actually did. ;-P
This is the second time you have put words into my posts that I never typed, or even alluded to (the first was when you said the players at my table were insisting that I let them play a re-skinned ninja, when the examples I used were pulled out of thin air, and was in no way a reflection of my game table). I have not said once that my play-style is the correct or even the only way to play the game.
But I believe that I am correct in that the fluff IS hardwired into the RAW of 2nd edition:
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
But you in fact admitted, that you pulled your "players wanting ninja reflavored" out of the air. Without you providing that information, you initial posts didn't indicate you were doing so - that you in fact posted this exact statement.
How was I to know that your players didn't actually say, what you stated they said? Again, it was about a page later that you confirmed that your players hadn't actually said this.
So I didn't put words in your mouth, I only repeated the words from your own post. Only later did you correct yourself, in stating you were just pulling concepts out of the air, and not from you players.
I've got the 2e books, it doesn't say what you suggest anywhere. I think you're making this up. If anything all the provided kit books with 2e, is a proponent that many classes indeed can fill the same role. Look at the 2e Complete Ninja Handbook - included in that guide was something on Shinobi as applying to fighter and several other classes - this is definitely not exclusive to ninja class.
In the exact same way that "shinobi" applies ninja class schtick to other classes, reflavorings of any class to fit a specific niche, makes perfect sense - and all classes should be looked at for this possibility. This completely counters all your points, DigitalElf.
As for my participation in this thread, this is the generic "Gamer Talk" area of the board and the discussion of class crunch vs. class fluff transcends edition.
This is true, but in a thread that you didn't start, almost one third of the posts are yours and you haven't introduced anything inspiring about your opinion - you've only repeated yourself dozens of times, and not making headway with the rest of the posters in the thread. If you can provide something useful, we're listening, but you haven't done so yet in the entire thread.
The problem is you're beating a dead horse that was never alive in the first place.
I've enjoyed reading digitalelf's posts. (Even though I don't generally find it useful to treat class as a profession). He qualifies it heavily enough - "in my games", "the way I play", etcetera, that it's hardly onetruewayism.
If you're not interested in what someone's saying why reply telling them that? Just ignore them.
As for repeating oneself - I can't think of a regular poster on the forums who doesn't do that from time to time.
I always thought it was interesting in 2E how there was a Rogue Swashbuckler and a Fighter Swashbuckler kit. Then when you got the Red Steel boxed set, 'Swashbuckler' wasn't a class or kit, it was a 'way of life'...
|
|
you initial posts didn't indicate you were doing so
Here is everything I said about re-skinning ninjas (in order) from the first post, to the last...
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
...
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).
...
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.
Where in there, does it say that this comes from my table?
I've got the 2e books, it doesn't say what you suggest anywhere. I think you're making this up.
I've shown several times now, where the 2nd edition Player's Handbook states that classes should be looked at as being professions or careers, and if you are to do that, then that makes the fluff of the classes very important (and that is just the primary example of the books stating that the fluff of a class is important). YOU can choose to ignore that, and play them however you want, but the text is there...
If anything all the provided kit books with 2e, is a proponent that many classes indeed can fill the same role.
I've said, in this very thread that classes can share abilities and skills without stepping on each other's toes, and that implies that they also share similar roles, but to re-skin a class is, IMHO, unnecessary when a kit (either pre or custom made), will do the job.
Also, there are rules in the 2nd edition DMG that provide instructions for creating new classes, whether you choose to use them or take the easier route of just re-skinning a pre-existing class is entirely up to each individual group and their preferred play-style, but the rules are provided for a reason, and I personally choose to use them...
reflavorings of any class to fit a specific niche, makes perfect sense - and all classes should be looked at for this possibility. This completely counters all your points, DigitalElf.
It does for you, and that's awesome, but I do not think it makes perfect sense.
And a kit allowing a class to share similar abilities and/or roles does not invalidate my point of preferring to make a new kit or new class for a character concept that does not fit anything pre-existing instead of just re-skinning a pre-existing class to make a character concept fit. And this is, once again, because I do not look at classes as merely skill sets that can be configured however one wants to.
Character classes to me, are a way of life for the character, a life-style, a life-long career; I think that re-skinning a class not only cheapens the class, but strips away the importance that I, I, hold them to because of the way I view the role classes take within the game... And I am not holding you or anyone else in this thread to the same tenant.
This is true, but in a thread that you didn't start, almost one third of the posts are yours and you haven't introduced anything inspiring about your opinion - you've only repeated yourself dozens of times, and not making headway with the rest of the posters in the thread. If you can provide something useful, we're listening, but you haven't done so yet in the entire thread.
The problem is you're beating a dead horse that was never alive in the first place.
It's pretty much like Steve Geddes said above, I'm not doing anything any other poster has done on these boards or pretty much any other message board time and time again.
I have repeated myself, because, people keep asking me questions, or misquoting me, or misinterpreting my posts, etc. So, I, like everybody else, come back and clarify what I actually said, or meant.
the whole point of a ninja is that they are a government agent that applies stealth and does black ops work for their ruler. the assassins did the same for the persian empire.
a ninja who pretends to be a circus performer as a cover the hide the fact they are a ninja, is still a ninja, they focus on the ninja tricks or rogue talents you could benefit from in a circus, doesn't change the fact they are a sneaky government agent who serves a man of great power.
in fact, many ninja took the roles of kabuki stage hands, circus performers, monks, and today in the modern Era, students in schools categorized based on their cosmetic age and proximity to the target.
a schoolgirl ninja isn't a ninja that happens to be a student, but she is what happens to amount to being a youthful and well preserved ninja who aged well, and with the help of forged transfer papers from the head of the family, pretends to be a student at a school in close proximity of the target, usually, they fake an accident or graduation when they finish their schooling at a less conspicuous pre planned time
many ninja take lifestyles and cover identities suited to both the accessibility of their target and how easily they can gain entrance into the target's private chambers.
using the schoolgirl kunoichi example, she would work to impress the shady doctor enough to become his intern, spend time in the persona as his intern building trust to earn a bond, and upon a private sharing of secrets for the doctor, then she would assassinate the doctor in a way that looked least conspicuous, and generally never with an obvious weapon, usually using techniques to make the doctor's death appear natural such as slow acting poisons in his food and the like
either way, the doctor is a target and either way, the doctor is going to have a subtle death that nobody cares to investigate, using subtle methods that don't show up on todays radars. such as fatal poisons that appear to be something as mundane as metamucil mixed with water when the autopsy occurs.
a government stealth operative is a government stealth operative, no matter what country or period he or she is from, whether you call her ninja, assassin, hellstalker or whatever term the vikings used for theirs.
|
|
the whole point of a ninja is...
And the whole point of me using "ninja" was to illustrate a point that had nothing to do with a "ninja" specifically; I could have very well used "rodeo-clown" to make the broader point I was going for, but "ninja" was the first thing I thought of to use as an example, and trust me, I regret having used it for my example because of the "fuss" it seemed to have casued...
in fact, many ninja took the roles of kabuki stage hands
Actually the first kabuki play that featured a ninja as part of the story line used a kabuki stage hand to represent the ninja, because to the kabuki audience the stage hand in black full body suits were supposed to be treated as "invisible". This is where the media concept of ninja in black costumes originate. However, at no time, did ninja wear those black costumes, nor were portraying themselves as stage hands - this can only be a misconception of the ninja costume trope origins.
Otherwise your basic premise is true, ninja did not wear specific dress instead wearing whatever was the least conspicuous under the circumstances of a given mission. When in rural districts dress like a peasant farmer, like a monk in a temple setting, as a samurai in government areas. At no time did they wear the black outfits seen in ninja movies.
It would seem likely that at some time ninja would have made use of some kind of night camouflage, when not being seen at all was more important than being able to blend in with other people. Obviously that probably wouldn't have been the traditional ninja movie outfit, but would likely have been dark and included mask and gloves since skin stands out.
The most common and lowest price dye color in feudal Japan was indigo, so became the color of the working class. Almost all farmers and craftsmen wore clothes that was mostly indigo and white. It would have been both a common practice and provide a good camouflage to wear indigo colored clothing for stealth purposes. Truth is, getting caught outside a theater wearing backstage hand garb would be far more illucidating that something was wrong here, and very much an antithesis to stealth activities.
There's also the larger question of whether the ninja in your setting are based on real-life ninjas or ninja movie ninjas. Much like the knights in your setting being based on real life medieval European knights or on Knights of the Round Table or other fictional/legendary sources.
Either is perfectly acceptable, as long as everyone has the same assumptions.
While some classic Japanese ghost stories have been mined for some of the storylines included in various Kaidan publication releases, as well as few of the more modern Japanese horror tales, like "The Grudge", for the most part research material for the setting is derived from historical Japan sites like Samurai-archives and Hyakumonogatari, and many historical books on the subject, as well as photo sites such as Old Photos Japan.. There has been an actual effort to avoid any tropes or concepts derived from modern media. For the most part Kaidan is based on the older Japanese ghost story tradition of the 19th century and earlier.
I am half Japanese, a Japanophile and an amateur historian. My goal since the beginning was to create as authentic a feudal Japan based setting as possible - while still keeping things fun and fantastic. In some ways I wanted to make some corrections that were included in previous editions of D&D. Stuff like: "kensai" is the wrong word to represent "sword saint", its actually a misspelling and should be "kensei" - and many similar mistakes.
In no way is ninja represented as they are in most movies and television, including media produced in Japan.