Re: Coming back to DnD

Rob Kelk wrote:
> JB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Bruce Grubb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brandon Cope) wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > So a 1st level party should be able to kill a very old, very large 
> > > > dragon?
> >
> >
> > > Why would a party HAVE to start at 1st level? :-)  GURPS parties can 
> > > start
> > > at any point total the GM want.  All the way from 1st level Commoner
> > > equivalent (25pts, realistic) to virtual demi-gods (500pts+, cinematic).
> >
> >
> > They don't.
>
>
> Excuse me, but they do.  I've played or GM'ed in GURPS games where 
> characters started at 50 points, 100 points, 125 points, 150 points, 200 
> points, and 500 points.

"They" being D&D characters who don't have to start at first level.

> > > Even with its improvements D&D still has problems which becomes obvious
> > > with the NPC classes.  There is still this class for everything and
> > > everything with its class mentality we had back in AD&D1 (which is why I
> > > have been refering to a 20 year book BTW).
> >
> >
> > What the fuck are you babbling about now? It's a class system and in D&D
> > everyone is a 1st level something. Whoopdy do! Why is that a problem and
> > why is it obvious with NPC classes?
>
>
> Because you end up having to come up with new classes for unique 
> characters that can't be shoehorned into existing classes.  After a 
> while, you can get to the point where there are nearly as many classes 
> as there are NPCs.

Bollocks. It seems you have Dopie Cope's understanding of the 3e class 
system. Most bases can be covered with the core classes, PrCs and 
multiclassing.

> > > I mean does there really need
> > > to be 'classes' like the Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, or 
> > > Warrior?
> >
> >
> > Why shouldn't there be?
>
>
> Because those group names are useless as descriptions.

That's why D&D players use the *descriptions* for descriptions.

>  What is an 
> "Expert" expert at, and how is that different from being "Adept" at 
> something?  (In various point-based systems, both terms are used to 
> indicate high skill levels.)  What does every "Commoner" have in common? 
>  (In the real world, usually nothing.)  Does a "Warrior" fight from 
> horseback with a lance, or on foot with a bow, or from the back lines 
> with a missile weapon?

*Why* are you critizing things you clearly have no understanding off? 
Once again; they are just class names. Meta game terms that need have 
no "world" meaning.

> (These are all very different skills, which 
> don't offer very much crossover between each other in the real world.) 

<Shakes head sadly>

NPC classes are for one thing and one thing alone. To represent the 
greater mass of people who don't have access to the sophisticated 
training regimes of the PC classes.

Commoners have a skill list which allows you to build a variety of 
medieval type people, warriors have reasonable combat skills and 
proficiency choices but lack the range and number of the fighter. Adepts 
are primitive Clerics and Aristocrats are warriors with an expanded 
*choice* of social skills.

> How did the "Aristocrat" get to the aristocracy - through accident of 
> birth (in which case he's just a lucky dilettante)

No, in which case he's an *aristocrat* and the class model is based on 
the pseudo medieval world in which D&D is based.

Your statement is completely nonsensical. Why is someone of noble birth 
automatically a dilettante?

> , through force of 
> arms (in which case he's a warrior of some sort)

*Ahem* not all aristocrats have the aristocrat class.

> , through divine favour 
> (which might make him a priest, or just some random commoner), through 
> proper application of skills (which makes him a politician), or some 
> other way?

*Ahem* not all aristocrats have the aristocrat class.

> > > Also and more importantly is you want to have a sword and sorcery 
> > > character
> > > from elsewhere running around how do import them?  I mean just what 
> > > class
> > > and level is some one like Lina Inverse from Slayers anime?  Or the 
> > > fighter
> > > mage who turns into a mouse when she cast spells (it a curse) from Ruin
> > > Explorers?  Or the main characters from the old Thundarr cartoon?  Even
> > > anime that came from AD&D1 (Record of Lodos War) doesn't import well.
> >
> >
> > Cartoons and Anime suck 
>
>
> My, such a well-reasoned argument you present...  <sigh>
>
> Very well, then:  What class and level is Gandalf, or Thomas Covenant, 
> or Rincewind, or Xena?

I don't care and therefore I won't try. Grubb is claiming that it's hard 
but I *know* that people who post here (fans of the genre) have done it 
without massive difficulty.


> >       but ask Sea Wasp. He's probably stated them out.
>
>
> If he has, I wouldn't mind getting copies...

Then ask him for some.

> > > With GURPS you can assign the skill gestimating on their knowledge of 
> > > those
> > > skills.  To do it with D&D is a mess.  What class is Deedlit and what 
> > > level
> > > is she? Is Etoh a priest or due to his age an adept?
> >
> >
> > Why is it a mess in D&D? You guess, just like GURPS.
>
>
> He's asking *for* your guess.  If you don't know the source, that's 
> fine, but please say so.

No he isn't. He made a blanket statement that the modelling is 
difficult. "To do it with D&D is a mess".

Peoples experiences obviously don't tally with that and it's therefore 
another of his bullshit sweeping statements.