Re: Coming back to DnD

"Rob Kelk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> JB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Bruce Grubb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >>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...

He was referring to the first sentence.

> >>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.

...or you work within the system to get something approximating what you
want, just like in any system.

> After a while, you can get to the point where there are nearly as many
classes
> as there are NPCs.

Yes, and in GURPS, you might have to write a new Advantage for each new NPC.
No need to resort to implausible reductio ad absurdum scenarios.

> >> 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, of course, is not at all true.  They are quite useful as
approximations.

> What is an "Expert" expert at,

That is what the chosen skills are good for.  The class is a vehicle for
buying those skills.

> and how is that different from being "Adept" at
> something?

The "Adept" being referred to here is a character class, not a description
of ability.  Duh.

> (In various point-based systems, both terms are used to
> indicate high skill levels.)

So?

> What does every "Commoner" have in common?

Being pathetic?  What exactly is your point?

>   (In the real world, usually nothing.)

Newsflash: this is not the real world we are talking about.  Also, most
intelligent people know *exactly* what I mean when I use the word "commoner"
in the context of a medieval-level society.

> Does a "Warrior" fight from horseback with a lance, or on foot
> with a bow, or from the back lines with a missile weapon?

Yes, they could fight with any of the above.  Their feat selection
determines which they are better at.

>  (These are all very different skills,

A bow and a "back line missile weapon" are "very different skills"?

> which don't offer very much crossover between each other in the real
world.)

You *do* know that is not what we are talking about, right?

> How did the "Aristocrat" get to the aristocracy

Who cares?  Put it in the backstory; it is not needed on the character
sheet.

> - through accident of
> birth (in which case he's just a lucky dilettante), through force of
> arms (in which case he's a warrior of some sort), 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?

...all of which are taken care of just fine by multiclassing.

-- 
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley