Re: Coming back to DnD

Bradd W. Szonye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Bruce Grubb" 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).
>
> > JB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > They don't.
>
> Rob Kelk wrote:
>
> > Excuse me, but they do.
>
> Read that again. Bruce asked a question ("Why would a party have to
> start at 1st level?"), and JB answered it.

(re-reads paragraph)  I suppose you could read his response that way. 
If I misread his response, I apologize.


> > > 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.
>
> True. Fortunately, it's rare, because pre-made templates are easier to
> work with than unique ones. (Also fortunately, D&D recommends creating
> those new classes when it really is the best thing to do. Some folks
> have claimed otherwise.)

Good to know.  Which of the rulebooks has the rules for creating D&D 
classes?  I'd like to take a look at them.


> > > > 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.  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? 
>
> Judge books by their covers much?

When each "book" is this small, I don't have much choice - the cover 
*is* the book.

>       Each class also has a definition. Of
> course the names don't mean much if you take them out of context.

As this thread shows, yes.

>       But to
> answer your questions: The "expert" is a template for broadly-skilled
> characters like most of the medieval middle class (especially urban
> craftsmen and merchants).

Oh, dear.  There wasn't much overlap between tanners, blacksmiths, 
merchants, scribes, or the various other artisans that made up the 
medieval middle class - even the base statistic scores were often different.

>       The "commoner" is a template for the medieval
> working class.

Then why not give it the historically-accurate name of "serf farmer" and 
avoid the confusion?

>       The "adept" is a kind of minor spellcaster.

What kind, and why not just take another class and give it the 
appropriate spells or spell-like effects?

>       Taken out of
> context, the names may seem weird, but they all have clear ties to what
> they represent.

No comments on my questions about "Warrior" and "Aristocrat"?


> Are you done quibbling over semantics?

It's impossible to "quibble" over "semantics" - look up both words.

>       Do you actually have a point?

Yes:  The "class" rules are overly artificial, overly restrictive, and 
historically inaccurate.

--
Rob Kelk                Personal address: robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
          Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.