Re: Coming back to DnD

"Rob Kelk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bradd W. Szonye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Judge books by their covers much?

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

Wrong.  Do I have to explain why?

> >       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 base statistic scores of Experts are often different too, as are their
skills.  What is your point?

> >       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?

...because not all Commoners are serf farmers?  Sheesh.

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

The mixed kind.

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

...because Adepts are weaker than the Heroic, PC-type classes.  Also, their
spell list is different.

> >       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"?

What about them?  The former is a non-Heroic fighter-type, and the latter is
a non-heroic generic noble/royal-type.

> > Are you done quibbling over semantics?
>
> It's impossible to "quibble" over "semantics" - look up both words.

You are being an incredible fuckwit.  "Let's not quibble over semantics" is
the example phrase for the "semantics" entry in the American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language, for Christ's sake!

> >       Do you actually have a point?
>
> Yes:  The "class" rules are overly artificial,

Everything represented in a game system is artificial.

> overly restrictive,

Boo fucking hoo.  I do not find it so.  Many others agree.  I will gladly
take some restrictions in order to simplify gameplay.

> and historically inaccurate.

To even include this identifies you as a moron.  Since when is D&D an
attempt at *realism*, let alone *historical* realism?

-- 
^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