Re: Coming back to DnD

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Rob Kelk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.  

You suffer from reading miscomprehension here. You an JB are in 
agreement. JB said D&D character don't HAVE to start at 1st level. 
Grubb was stating that they do (apparantly, he's insane).

> 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.  (It's something like the background in the 
> "Discworld" novels, where the entrepenuer C.M.O.T. Dibbler was forced to 
> join the guild that most closely matched his business, and ended up 
> joining the "Guild of C.M.O.T. Dibblers".)

Or you take advantage of the free multiclassing and prestige classes 
to make 99% of characters from existing classes and class combinations.

> >> 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.  

Just because you don't know what they mean doesn't make the useless. 
So the names are not instantly telling you every single aspect of the 
character. That's a pretty lame excuse to ditch classes in D&D. 
altogether.

> What is an 
> "Expert" expert at, 

He's an expert because of his skill points (he get more than most 
others) and he is an expert in whatever he chooses to be.

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

In D&D, adept refers to magic.

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

In other systems, terms of art have other meanings. What a 
breakthrough you have achieved.

> What does every "Commoner" have in common? 

Look at the rules in the book, and they will tell you.

>   (In the real world, usually nothing.)  

How about, not greatly skilled at anything, knows few languages (his 
native one only is the most common), not adroit with weapons, unable 
to use magic, not priestly abilities, etc, etc, etc.

> Does a "Warrior" fight from 
> horseback with a lance, or on foot with a bow, or from the back lines 
> with a missile weapon?  (These are all very different skills, which 
> don't offer very much crossover between each other in the real world.) 

Depend on how the character is made from the basic class. Are you just 
bitching to practice your typing, because it seems like you don't have 
a fucking clue. Classes these days are not the de-all end-all 
definition of a character, there are other things you must do to 
define the character completely.

> How did the "Aristocrat" get to the aristocracy - 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?

Does any of that matter in terms of whether you call him an aristocrat 
and build him using the aristocrat class (free clue: it doesn't).

> Very well, then:  What class and level is Gandalf, or Thomas Covenant, 
> or Rincewind, or Xena?

Can you get 10 GURPS GM's to make those characters all the same way? 
No, so here is another free bit of wisdom: It varies based on who does 
the translation. 

> (If you think *all* fiction sucks, then what class and level was 
> Spartacus, or Geronimo, or Xerxes?)

How many points were they built on? I bet 10 different GURPS GM's will 
come up with 12 different answers. Why do you expect D&D to have some 
hard and fast answer to a question that is so obviously open to 
interpretation?

> >>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's trolling and being an idiot. You too, so i'm 
unsurprised you couldn't tell.

-- 
James Quick     [][][]     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Profanity is the first resort of the inarticulate motherfucker.
     -- Elizabeth D. Brooks, among others.