Re: Coming back to DnD

"Rob Kelk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Malachias Invictus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "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?
>
> Yes - I'm not a mind-reader.

Sheesh.  The "book" is the entire class.  The "cover" is the name of the
class that you seem overly hung up on.  I trust I do not need to spoon-feed
any further.

> >>>      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?

> To quote you, "do I have to explain"?  All right, that isn't fair.  My
> point is that either (a) the class requires all Experts to have
> statistics that would allow them to be able to operate in *all* "expert"
> fields, which stretches suspension of disbelief to the breaking point,
> or (b) the class is so broadly "defined" that it may as well be a
> point-based system.

In other words, you are criticizing something you know nothing about.  There
are no "statistics" requirements to become an Expert.  At each level, you
are given a sizable chunk of skill points to spend on skills appropriate to
your craft/profession/etc.  Where is the problem?

> >>>      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.
>
> Then they aren't all part of the "medieval working class".

If you think all working class people throughout the middle ages were serf
farmers, you are incredibly ignorant of history.  What is more, you are
missing the fact that this is not an historical game.

> >>>      The "adept" is a kind of minor spellcaster.
> >>
> >>What kind,
> >
> > The mixed kind.
>
> Which is ... what?  Are they all cleric/mages, or something similar?

They are not either, although they have some spells from both camps.  They
are also quite a bit weaker than their Heroic counterparts.

> >>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.
>
> What ever happened to setting the NPCs to a lower level than the PCs?

They generally are.

> And why give them different spells?

They do not have different spells; they have different spell *lists*.  The
short answer for why is: because they are different.  Why give Clerics and
Wizards different spell lists?  Should everyone have access to all the same
spells?

> >>>      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.
>
> So why not just use the standard fighter classes for the Warrior, at low
> levels?

...because Fighters get a ton of Heroic bonus feats, and mook Warriors
should not have them.

> Why have a different game mechanic for PCs and NPCs?

It isn't a different game mechanic; it is a different class.

> And as I implied a few posts back, there's no such thing as a "generic
> noble/royal-type", considering how many different ways a character can
> become noble.

If they are important differences in game mechanical terms, that is what
skill and feat customization are for.    Both are available within the
bounds of the Aristocrat class.

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

> >      "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!
>
> Ah, you're using American English.

No, I am using standard English.

> I understand that you folks have
> different meanings for some words; I wasn't aware that "semantics" was
> one of them.  Unless you're willing to switch to either the Oxford or
> Cambridge dictionaries (which I don't expect), we're going to have to
> "agree to disagree" on this one.

Quote the OED definitions, then.  When you are done, prove the impossibility
of quibbling over semantics.

>> I will gladly take some restrictions in order to simplify gameplay.

> In my experience, classes *don't* simplify gameplay - they only simplify
> character creation.

They generally *greatly* simplify character creation, *and* advancement.

> If you can describe a counter-example, I'd be happy
> to hear about it.

Once you have played, for example, a Fighter, it becomes increasingly simple
to play *any* Fighter.  You learn quickly what most of the Feats do, and how
to apply them in combat, either by themselves or in combination.  The same
goes for the abilities of other classes.

> >>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?
>
> Since TSR published their ancient Rome sourcebook back in the days of
> Second Edition, if not earlier.  How many years ago was that, again?

I have no idea.  I never bought it.  However, I find it difficult to believe
any claims of realism were in that book.  D&D is a cinematic heroic
roleplaying game.  It is not designed to be well suited to "realistic"
games.  On the other hand, I could easily see that sourcebook being used for
epic, heroic "Classical Age" games along the lines of Age of Mythology.
Then again, if *I* were to do so, I would use my GURPS book on the subject,
since the historical books of that line are generally top-notch, and I own
many of them.

> (Besides, if y'all [did I get that right?] are going to continue to
> crosspost threads to r.g.f.gurps, then you'll have to deal with people
> who expect historical accuracy in their games.

I find no problem with that expectation, *in an historical game*.  D&D is
not such, nor are the GURPS games that it is being compared to.

-- 
^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