The Campaign Builder's Guild

This thread is to discuss classes, both fluff- and crunch-wise.

As always in this stage of the project, try to focus your thoughts on establishing and expanding the Core Ethos in this area. We don't just want to hear what you think would be a really cool way to handle classes, but rather what would be a really cool way for THIS SETTING to handle classes. The Core Ethos isn't definitive yet, of course, but it seems definitive enough that we can discuss other topics assuming that it is.

;) Túrin

I think we should have a couple of setting specific classes that really bring out the settings flavor, much like the artificer in Eberron. I'm thinking about a Totem Warrior class, tied to the Totems people worship.

Also, we need to decide what magic we will have, as that will effect what classes we put in.

I think it'd be quite interesting if we could change up the classes already existing or make new classes to fit our world. I don't know, we might need mroe insight on this.

Oh, and I'm going advise we subtly nerf divine spellcasters down to the level of Arcane, or visa versa - the two types shouldn't be so unbalanced. As Nate said in the magic thread, boosting up sorcerers would be nice as well.

I like the totem-warrior idea; much like the one in "Arcana Unearthed," which is a bit like a ranger, but not quite.  I think all the core classes should be included (even though I hate monks and find them to be totally out of place in most western-feudalism-based campaigns), but we should definitely look into some original classes to spice things up.

There was a nice witch class at www.community3e.com , I used to lurk there...  I don't have a very good head for mechanics though, so someone might want to check it over...

QuoteI like the totem-warrior idea;

maybe we could do some substitute-level stuff for totem abilities. i kinda hate to add new cool stuff that existing classes couldn't use. maybe just a smattering of totemish(/ BFG-ish)-feats tailored for the existing classes, in addition to a totem-warrior class?

Well, Unearthed Arcana is OGL, so we could easily use some of those variants to re-flavor our classes (especially the totem barbarian variant and the aspect of nature druid variant).

Adding any new classes, in my opinion, should be done from a thematic standpoint. For instance, since Good vs. Evil seems to be less strong in our current cosmological theme, perhaps the Paladin isn't appropriate. Here's a little idea that came to me:

Druids are the priests of the totems; no druid is married to a single totem (they may have a favorite), and they serve them all relatively equally (explaining why they are required to remain relatively neutral). Rangers are the totem's "divine warrior", and their tradition was forged out of the necessity to live off the land and take the "hunt" to the non-believers who would seek to defile the natural beauty of the totem's world.

Clerics are the priests of the new deities (I still like the idea of them being deified heroes and leaders from the Lost Empire). Rather than sticking with Paladins, I have a Templar class. It isn't perfect yet, since it was originally designed and balanced for my world. Here, I'll post the class chart and I'll link a zip file with the class itself.

I do have ideas on how to change clerics; it isn't a balance change, but a thematic change to make them more unique. Rather than cleric's spontaneously casting cure/inflict spells, they spontaneously cast their domain spells. To balance this, one must also remove the +1 spell slot gained for domain spells. This would make the Healing domain an important domain, as it should be, and it makes clerics with different domains actually different from each other. It isn't really a difficult change to make either.

Here's the Templar class chart:

TEMPLAR
HD: d10
Skills: 2+Int/level; Concentration, Craft, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge (religion), Profession, Ride, Sense Motive, and Spellcraft.
Alignment: Same as Deity's.
Proficiencies: Simple and Martial Weapons, Light, Medium, and Heavy armor, and Shields (but not Tower Shields).
Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special Spells Per Day
1 2 3 4
1st +1 +2 +0 +2 Smite 1/day, Domains â,¬' â,¬' â,¬' â,¬'
2nd +2 +3 +0 +3 Divine Grace â,¬' â,¬' â,¬' â,¬'
3rd +3 +3 +1 +3 Mettle â,¬' â,¬' â,¬' â,¬'
4th +4 +4 +1 +4 War Companion 0+1 â,¬' â,¬' â,¬'
5th +5 +4 +1 +4 Smite 2/day 0+1 â,¬' â,¬' â,¬'
6th +6 +5 +2 +5 1+1 â,¬' â,¬' â,¬'
7th +7 +5 +2 +5 Damage Reduction 1/- 1+1 â,¬' â,¬' â,¬'
8th +8 +6 +2 +6 1+1 0+1 â,¬' â,¬'
9th +9 +6 +3 +6 1+1 0+1 â,¬' â,¬'
10th +10 +7 +3 +7 Smite 3/day, 1+1 1+1 â,¬' â,¬'
Damage Reduction 2/-
11th +11 +7 +3 +7 1+1 1+1 0+1 â,¬'
12th +12 +8 +4 +8 1+1 1+1 1+1 â,¬'
13th +13 +8 +4 +8 Damage Reduction 3/- 1+1 1+1 1+1 â,¬'
14th +14 +9 +4 +9 2+1 1+1 1+1 0+1
15th +15 +9 +5 +9 Smite 4/day 2+1 1+1 1+1 1+1
16th +16 +10 +5 +10 Damage Reduction 4/- 2+1 2+1 1+1 1+1
17th +17 +10 +5 +10 2+1 2+1 2+1 1+1
18th +18 +11 +6 +11 3+1 2+1 2+1 1+1
19th +19 +11 +6 +11 Damage Reduction 5/- 3+1 3+1 3+1 2+1
20th +20 +12 +6 +12 Smite 5/day 3+1 3+1 3+1 3+1

Now, I personally think the class should have 3/4ths BAB, but it should gain weapon focus, specialization, greater focus, and greater specialization in their deity's favored weapon at levels 1, 6, 12, and 18. This would keep them at about the same strength as a character with full BAB without those feats (technically it is a little weaker), but it would make them a little more unique. They wouldn't be the greatest warriors without their deity's weapon in hand.

PS: Their Smite is only usable with their Deity's favored weapon, so it has it's limitations. Also, this class was designed to replace the War domain; so no taking Templar with the War domain. Hah. Their spell list will be the paladin's, altered to conform to the Templar's alignment, with the War domain spells added in (if any are missing that is). They also need a spell which allows them to summon their deity's favored weapon, just in case theirs is lost or destroyed.

I hope you like it.
File: 1143767491_29_FT2657_templar_cbg.zip (//../../e107_files/public/1143767491_29_FT2657_templar_cbg.zip)

QuoteRather than cleric's spontaneously casting cure/inflict spells, they spontaneously cast their domain spells.

absolutely[/i] need to heal. or, rather--the other party members need that cleric to be healing them. removing spontaneous healing forces clerics to make a substandard domain choice in order to help the party, or rewards them for considering themselves over the rest of the party. i mean that's how i see it. either that or it makes them memorize a bunch of cure spells, even though they have the destruction and strength domains, which doesn't make any damned sense. ;)

The "Champion" class from Monte Cooke's "Arcana Unearthed," may be a viable choice to replace the paladin, though I don't know how much of AU we can use before stepping on copyrighted toes...

meh, we dont need to replace the paladin. if we want a totemish champ, they can exist straight along side the ole pally. you don't have to remove a class so you have an empty slot to put another one in.

couldnt we just keep core, and re-name them according to culture?

i mean;
 totem zealot = paladin
totem shaman = cleric

whatever.

do we need different classes?

I think the issue with the paladin is the fact that it's a class for one alignment.  The champion makes a paladin-like class that focuses on any alignment or cause.  But it doesn't matter too much...

that sounds good then.  

i was just going to say un-alignment-restrict the paladin.

Quote from: brainface

QuoteRather than cleric's spontaneously casting cure/inflict spells, they spontaneously cast their domain spells.

absolutely[/i] need to heal. or, rather--the other party members need that cleric to be healing them. removing spontaneous healing forces clerics to make a substandard domain choice in order to help the party, or rewards them for considering themselves over the rest of the party. i mean that's how i see it. either that or it makes them memorize a bunch of cure spells, even though they have the destruction and strength domains, which doesn't make any damned sense. ;)

Why not? That's what the cleric thinks is beneficial for their spell power. The all cure cleric with destruction/death can prepare all cures, and then when they need it convert them to inflicts or death spells.

And this also makes healing not a substandard domain. Healing is substandard because clerical healing is so easy.

QuoteWhy not? That's what the cleric thinks is beneficial for their spell power. The all cure cleric with destruction/death can prepare all cures, and then when they need it convert them to inflicts or death spells.

And this also makes healing not a substandard domain. Healing is substandard because clerical healing is so easy.

Very true; I agree completely.

-Nasty-

Are Incarnum and the Incarnum Classes going to be incorporated?

We're not sure yet, thasis... There's a good chance that the newest one (Tome of Magic) will find some incorporation, but we're not sure how many non-core supplements we'll be actually implementing.  It may be something best left up to the DM.

Quote from: xevWhy not? That's what the cleric thinks is beneficial for their spell power. The all cure cleric with destruction/death can prepare all cures, and then when they need it convert them to inflicts or death spells.

And this also makes healing not a substandard domain. Healing is substandard because clerical healing is so easy.

i think that actually works out to a more limited spell choice for the destroy-o-cleric. (there's one set of cure spells/level, there's a HOST of utility/destruction/buff spells.) i don't quess this is the spot to continue debate on that, though. ;) (i.e., a separate thread in elements and design would be. don't wanna clutter it up in here.)

Quote from: IshmaylWe're not sure yet, thasis... There's a good chance that the newest one (Tome of Magic) will find some incorporation, but we're not sure how many non-core supplements we'll be actually implementing.  It may be something best left up to the DM.

Tome and Incarnum may be difficult to incorperate. The DM absolutely has to have the books, and so too would any player intending on using stuff from them. People who aren't wouldn't "need" to, but a general understanding of the rules is nice to know how to counter the stuff.

As for defending my cleric: How often has your cleric had to have converted all of their spells to cure spells in any given day? Currently the Healing domain stinks, this makes it good, but it doesn't make the cleric a worse healer. If they need to be a healer, take the Healing domain; clerics with the healing domain are healers (sounds simple eh?).

We can stick with the core clerc. But many have expressed that the core cleric is too powerful. This is one small way to make the cleric more flavorful, and serves as a slight power down because it forces the cleric to consider their priorities more.

It's nice that we're discussing cleric stuff but don't you think we should shift focus over to the overall scheme of the classes?

It feels like (correct me if I'm wrong) that you want to have classes that incorporate with the city-states, empire, and totems individually rather than have all the classes available everywhere.

I think we should think of some 'core' classes (with the healing, fighting, spellcasting, rogueing, and whatever else core classes do) and then some of the 'regional' or 'tribal' classes (like totem servants, empire aristocrats, and city-state defenders, etc.).

Does someone want to express what they feel about what the 'core' classes should be? (or maybe they want all the classes available everywhere!?!)

yeah, i moved that discussion iunto anothr theard. sorry abouppt that. stypid keyboard.

Quote(or maybe they want all the classes available everywhere!?!)

id want them all everywhere. some regions favor some classes, sure. and i'd want different regions to have different backstories for classes--a totem cleric could have a very diffent role in society than a BFG cleric. really, i dont think class roles in the theme need to be defined TOO stricktly, as i think it could limit innovation when it comes to defining individual npcs/pcs.

My way of doing it is every clas should be allowed, if the players can explain it.  ie having a barbarian in the Bad-ass empire will take ome serious backstory.

yeah, and by the same token, an npc barbarian can originate fine in the BFG, he just has a strange backstory. prolly not many ranks in survival, either ;)

mayabe one of the empire-saint-gods was Known To Get Angry, and he's trying to emulate that.

I'm kinda leaning towards the core classes here as well, plus possibly inventing a few new classes.

I'm with Ishy  - keep the core, and make some new ones. Once we nail down what totems are what, I'll make a totem warror class, and maybe even a "totem avatar" class that would be a casting type.

I still say the ranger and the barbarian are totem warriors. Now, I can see a "Totem Warrior" PrC, similar to the Animal Lord (for rangers), and possibly something like the Bear Warrior for barbarians.

Totem Classes
Priest - Druid
Half-Caster - Ranger
Warrior - Barbarian

Empirial Classes
Priest - Cleric
Half-Caster - Templar/Paladin
Warrior - Fighter

This only leaves out the Bard, Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard. Depending on what caused the destruction of the Lost Empire, we may or may not have cultural leanings on the other classes.

But this is still because I think druids are the totemic priests.

I'd be inclined to agree with Xeviat's presentation.  However, I still say a good enough backstory can make exceptions where needed.

I would say we actually "borrow" and implement Monte Cook's "Totem Warrior" class and make it work with our totems.

That's what I was thinking - something along those lines. It'd need to be edited enough to be more than a direct copy of Monte Cook's totem warrior. I was thinking about giving it a rage like ability that functions kinda like the shifters shifting in the abilities it gives you.

Is there somewhere I can find this class?  Because right now I really have no idea what you're talking about...

I'm not sure "Arcana Unearthed" and the rest of Monte's stuff is OGL, so it's probably not on the internet.  I'll look in to it; it's possible that, like other campaigns, the stats are OGL, but the descriptions are PI, so we cold use them.

From Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved (which is the update to Arcane Unearthed) "The Following Portions of Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved are designated as Open Game Content..."The Class tables and "class features" sections of chapter 3." In essance, all of the crunch from Arcana Evolved is OGL.

i still think we could just stick to core, and have different cultural versions of the core classes.

maybe alignment restrict paladins, ...  and we're good, imo.

but im sure we could use some prestige.

I agree that we need to stick to core, at least insofar that we describe how the core classes fit in the world and what their flavour is. We could add any classes to fill specific flavour roles in the setting (such as Totem classes) but deciding that in this setting, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously rather than getting an extra slot for them seems arbitrary and should be left up to the individual DM, unless there is a compelling, flavourful and setting-specific reason to do it.

;) Túrin

Quote from: TúrinI agree that we need to stick to core, at least insofar that we describe how the core classes fit in the world and what their flavour is. We could add any classes to fill specific flavour roles in the setting (such as Totem classes) but deciding that in this setting, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously rather than getting an extra slot for them seems arbitrary and should be left up to the individual DM, unless there is a compelling, flavourful and setting-specific reason to do it.

;) Túrin

I guess you're right Turin. As much as I like the idea of spontaneous domain casters, there's no reason to change the system unless the setting itself calls for it, in order to support some key conceptual flavor.

-Nasty-

Besides 'core' and 'psionics',  is there any other base-class someone feels like we must have?

Are we going to have a dif class for non-LG paladins?  or just alignment un-restrict them?

[edit:]

actually,  Lawful Good only means that person obeys what they believe to be 'lawful' and 'good'.

So, im sure you could play a paladin of any god, totem or otherwise, as long as they obey their sense of Law and Good.

Make it so that their belief of LG does not make them think that punting burning babaies is alright, and it sounds good.  Don't want players saying mentally unbalanced pally's who think they're doing the world a favor keep their powers.

Quote from: daggerhartactually,  Lawful Good only means that person obeys what they believe to be 'lawful' and 'good'.

So, im sure you could play a paladin of any god, totem or otherwise, as long as they obey their sense of Law and Good.

Eh, not entirely true... "Good," at least, definitely has a pretty straight-forward definition in most D&D.  If a totem god promoted the slaying of all first-borns on the full moon, and the slavery of halflings, then a "paladin" of that god would not be lawful good (even if he thought the deity was good), but instead would be lawful evil.  Which is why I either think we should A - leave out alignments until we're really ready to tackle these issues, or B - leave out the paladin until we're ready to settle on a good variant... paladin's the only one I'm having issues with.


Still think Monte Cooke's "Champion" is the best variant.

This might be better for another thread, but I'm not sure thinking enslaving halflings is good makes you evil. I agree that it makes you evil combined with the slaying of firstborns, but taken alone, I'm not sure it's enough to forbid one form making such a paladin... Am I making sense?

Turin, how would the enslavement of any race  (well, okay, maybe not gnomes) not be considered evil in any sort of form in D&D or real-world?  (I bring up real-world because most morality issues in D&D are based off real-world events... we wouldn't consider genocide in D&D evil unless we also considered it evil here on planet earth).

Addendum:

I mean, even if you had a reason that you thought was worthwhile to enslave halflings, such as a halfling nation murdered your family and all your friends and village, it would still not be considered a "good" thing to enslave them.

seriously. we can leave in the paly precisely as is. then add in a champion class. you don't have to remove a class to add another. leave the paly for people that like him. add champion/templar for those that don't.

unrestrictricting thier alignment and adding pro good/law, chaos hammer, etc. to spell list would be the easiest thing, though, imo.

Up until the first socialist movements of the 19th century, it was widely accepted to consider some groups of people to be below other groups. Just for kicks, you should read up on some social philosophers (ranging all the way from Plato to Kant) and see what they have to say about women (for example). Many of them include phrases such as "it is obvious that women are not entitled to full citizenship" and some go quite a bit further than that. Given that DnD is pseudo-historical, I could imagine that at least in some DnD-worlds analogous lines of thought would exist. Being good means caring about the dignity of other living beings, but not necessarily being a proponent of the modern idea of equal rights.

Quote from: TúrinUp until the first socialist movements of the 19th century, it was widely accepted to consider some groups of people to be below other groups. Just for kicks, you should read up on some social philosophers (ranging all the way from Plato to Kant) and see what they have to say about women (for example).

now that discussion definantly belongs in another thread.. :).

we could probably have a decent 'Alignment' philosophical discussion.

Strangely that period of time actually was my biggest inspiration for Sulos, and Hazra'Ghalduur in particular.

As for the paladin...if you try not to think of them as a divine servent of god, and more like a knight in shining armor (with a personal code, but no particular deity to whom he swears total servitude), they make perfect sense.

However if you try to put them in the context of a divine crusader who embodies the ideals of his deity, then you start to wonder why there aren't paladins who serve all deities. Try not to fall into this trap.

I don't even think we need totem warriors to be honest. The totem barbarians from unearthed arcana, though in need of totem specific revision, really already personify what we want. I also think variants like those are much easier to integrate into a setting than whole new classes.

-Nasty-

can we use stuff from the Unearthed Arcana?

I confused as to which stuff we can and can't use.
I know what the OGL is, but i dont know which products are OGL.

The Unearthed Arcana is in the SRD...all things you can find in the SRD are indeed OGL. It's pretty cool actually.

-Nasty-

Quote from: nastynateThe Unearthed Arcana is in the SRD...all things you can find in the SRD are indeed OGL. It's pretty cool actually.

-Nasty-

That is pretty damn cool, I think I'll check it out.

I wasn't paying attention...

Are we doing 'regional' classes or not?

daggerhart, there's a huge difference between the D&D supplement, "Unearthed Arcana," and Monte Cooke's "Arcana Unearched."  UA basically just gives you a few variant rules systems to go by.  AU is all new classes, races, skills, feats, and spells for a campaign called "The Diamond Throne."

If we're having such a hard time with Paladins, then I suggest we use the Unearthed Arcana varient Paladins and just change the class name to Champion (as in the champion of causes), or we use my Templar class (and I can modify it to fit the needs of the setting).

As it's shaping out now, the standard Paladin probably doesn't fit this world.

Has the group come to a conclusion on the Cleric vs. Druid situation?

QuoteAs it's shaping out now, the standard Paladin probably doesn't fit this world.

ehhh... there might not be a LOT of them, sure. but i don't think it'd necessarily be necessary to say that no character, ANYWHERE, is a paladin. it's okay to have a few black sheep here and there, in this case, very holy black sheep.

it might help class placement if we threw out some preliminary npcs for city-states/places in the empire. basically, have a few people brainstorm a particular npc's classes working in a particular spot. cuz i ain't seeing consensus here, as far as classes go.

Well ... remember that paladins make up a sizable chunk of the adventuring population. Any hamlet is bound to have a paladin between 1st and 3rd level, and a 1 in 3 chance of having a 1st level one (that's if there's a 3rd level one). Granted, Paladins and Rangers are more rare than sorcerers and wizards, but they're still there.

I just think a generic Templar or Champion is just better design; why should only LG, NG, and LN gods have a martial champion at 1st level, while CG, CN, and the evils have to wait till they take a PrC (blackguard and holy liberator)?

Has anyone suggested the PrC Bard, Paladin, and Ranger yet?

I haven't suggested it, but that's what I use in Shadowfell and think it's a pretty good idea.... but then again, we're limiting core classes to do something like that.

Stop thinking of paladins as divine champions, and you won't have any issues with them. I already warned against this trap a few posts ago. It makes no sense for only LG gods to have divine champions...but paladins are not made for this job. Favored souls, clerics, and the divine champion PrC all fit this role better than the paladin.

Paladins are knights with divine favor from the combined forces of goodness. Though they may worship a particular deity, or even be blessed by him/her/it, they are not a subservient minion of this being. They are loyal to their code, first and foremost, and their deity second...some LG gods are not as virtuous as the paladin...why would the paladin to look to them for their example? The paladin sets the example himself.

-Nasty-

EDIT: I forgot to make the point. Paladins still work just fine, even if you want to make a divine champion class.

QuoteWell ... remember that paladins make up a sizable chunk of the adventuring population. Any hamlet is bound to have a paladin between 1st and 3rd level, and a 1 in 3 chance of having a 1st level one (that's if there's a 3rd level one).

you seem to be mentioning DMG rules which we are under no obligation to follow. :)
We could easily split that between paladin and 'divine champion/totem warrior'.
or we could ignore it altogether, and say whoever writes up an individual city/village determines the mix of classes...in some cities it'd probably make a LOT of sense to have them. in others, none.

Come to think of it wouldn't it be cool if paladins were the elite knights of the empire? They swear allegience to the emperor, and serve the greater good, the saints, and mankind, against the entropic destructful forces of the Totem Gods and their barbaric followers.

They could at times be at odds with the empire, but for the most part are very loyal and heroic warriors. Even if the empire were slightly corrupt or self serving the imperium could point to the paladins who serve them, and say "why would such noble men serve us, if we were unjustified in our cause or methods?"

Seems like a perfect role for paladins, that isn't tied to the worship of an individual deity. Lot's of great role-playing opportunities in there too.

-Nasty-

I'd like to see Paladins as strictly Emperial, and rangers as strictly Totemic (pantheon wise). The only problem is that this means Paladins would need to be changed more to Justicars; Any Lawful aligned.

This would make the Emperial pantheon primarily lawful (which makes perfect sense). Of course, the empire will have demonized the Totemic "pantheon" (much like western religion demonized native european faiths by lumping them together under the catch all of "peganism"), and may recognize a few of the Totems as fiends.

The Totems, though, will range across all of the alignment, and won't have enough of a relationship with each other to actually be a pantheon.

That is definately a role for paladins; knights of the empire.

I don't think that it's necessary for justicars, although that does work as well. So long as the paladins are true to their code, they'd make fine knights...they could be kept in the dark about the less honorable activities of the imperial court. It's better that way for role-playing purposes anyway. A paladin who discovers that there is some sinister force at work behind the throne finds himself in a difficult position, where he has to choose between his loyalty to the empire vs. his own ethical code.

-Nasty-

QuoteI'd like to see Paladins as strictly Emperial, and rangers as strictly Totemic (pantheon wise).

many[/i] of them, and they might not be as high ranking. We don't really need to define an opposing totem class to meet all of the empire classes, do we?

Quote from: brainface

QuoteI'd like to see Paladins as strictly Emperial, and rangers as strictly Totemic (pantheon wise).

many[/i] of them, and they might not be as high ranking. We don't really need to define an opposing totem class to meet all of the empire classes, do we?

i agree.

i mean, there will def be Emperial rangers (urban, or explorers) and i dont think its necessary to restrict the paladin.

You could easily have an elven paladin of the tarraques, who wears hide armor and chucks spears.
i think the stereotype for the paladin is holding back some imaginations.

By no means was I personally advocating a strictly imperial role for paladins. I do think paladins would make a great knightly class for the empire, and the one place where we'd see them in numbers. A few lone paladins here and there in wild lands is perfectly fine too.

I like organizations, like knighthoods, guilds, schools, and so on. I think having iconic roles for certain classes is very important with a setting, to showcase the unique aspects of the world that differentiate it from other campaigns. But these iconic roles are never the only place for people of that particular class, just the most well known place to find them.

-Nasty-

Quote from: nastyA few lone paladins here and there in wild lands is perfectly fine too.

several of them could be former imperials, who'd had enough/seen too much, and decided breaking with the order was the only way they could stay true to their code.

Quote from: brainface

Quote from: nastyA few lone paladins here and there in wild lands is perfectly fine too.

Glad you're getting what I'm talking about. I think the idea of rogue imperials is fantastic too. I hope this paladin order makes the cut, because it seems too good a fit to get omitted or passed over. So much potential for dynamic character devlopment, adventure, and intrigue exists inherently within the basic concept.

-Nasty-

So I think a vote is in order here: either we go with very specific classes for the two "parts" of the world (i.e. most clerics, wizards and paladins are in the empire, most druids, sorcerers and rangers are in the city-states, somethings like that) OR we do not make such a sharp division (which means we either have totem/empire variants of some classes, or do not draw a parallel between class and location (empire or city-state) at all).

Shall I put up a vote?

Quote from: TúrinSo I think a vote is in order here: either we go with very specific classes for the two "parts" of the world (i.e. most clerics, wizards and paladins are in the empire, most druids, sorcerers and rangers are in the city-states, somethings like that) OR we do not make such a sharp division (which means we either have totem/empire variants of some classes, or do not draw a parallel between class and location (empire or city-state) at all).

Shall I put up a vote?

Go for it. I'm American; we love voting on stuff

i'm really not sure about these vote things. they seem to result in full support of one side, none for the other, while discussion yields compromise. i mean, discussion is slower, sure, but still.

No comment on the votes but...

[rant]I love OOTS, and I do recall a valid point about Miko.  she has paladin class levels, but she calls herself a samurai.  The entire world could have the same classes with the same abilities, but they might have specifically varying ideologies or tiles, or concepts.[/rant]

I don't know whether that qualifies as a rnat, but I labelled it as such nonetheless.

Hmmm... so you guys are still debating?! I like the idea of the variants of the classes based upon regions. It's easy, we just need the thoughts and ideas.

Quote from: WixmanHmmm... so you guys are still debating?! I like the idea of the variants of the classes based upon regions. It's easy, we just need the thoughts and ideas.

I think you missed the point. The classes don't vary just the names based upon the region in which you pursue the profession.

Variant classes based on regions could be a logistical nightmare. I don't want every city state to have their own unique classes...that's crazy! We'd have hundreds of classes then. It's not easy at all.

-Nasty-

Quote from: nastynateI think you missed the point. The classes don't vary just the names based upon the region in which you pursue the profession.

Variant classes based on regions could be a logistical nightmare. I don't want every city state to have their own unique classes...that's crazy! We'd have hundreds of classes then. It's not easy at all.

im with you 100%.

So do you think we need to vote (basically putting what nastynate said against what Wixman said in their last respective posts) or do you think we can reach a compromise here?

clarify what those options are respectively, and then I'll give you an answer.  NN's last post was really nothing but a "not that!" post

Quote from: TúrinEither we go with very specific classes for the two "parts" of the world (i.e. most clerics, wizards and paladins are in the empire, most druids, sorcerers and rangers are in the city-states, somethings like that) OR we do not make such a sharp division (which means we either have totem/empire variants of some classes, or do not draw a parallel between class and location (empire or city-state) at all).

well, one of the ideas bouncing around was to have i.e. paladins concentrated in the empire, with an established order. city-states could have them, but the reasoning varied, and maybe they had different names/background/m.o.s, but still basically the same class. Basically, there's a DEFAULT, but there can easily be exceptions.

The other idea seemed to be to completely disallow paladins/clerics/druids whatever based on region.

Alright, I must have missed that.  I propose you make a vote with more than 2 options or let us discuss this issue until it is decided.  My proposed options would be divide the classes by region, use/make variant classes for each region, allow any class anywhere, or allow fluff differences in classes from different regions but use the same crunch for the whole world.

im not sure i'm following...  

imo, we should keep just core classes, and let whoever develops the specific CS decide how the classes are different in those cultures.

its really the easiest way. and DMs can always add their own splat-classes to anything they want.

OK lets see if I can propose the options for a vote.

1. Variant classes based upon region of origon. Classes change statistically from place to place, to better fit their role in that environment.

2. Flavor based division like wild classes (druids, barbarians, scouts, rangers, etc) in the city-states, and civilized classes (fighters, paladins, clerics, rogues, etc) in the empire.

3. Default iconic roles like the imperial knight paladins (where most will be found), but with exceptions such as lone heroes, or rogue ex-imperials.

4. Same classes across the board, but with different titles depending upon where they come from. What would be called a barbarian in the empire, might be called a totem warrior in the city-states.

5. Other

Does sound like it covers the basics of our debate?

-Nasty-

Alright, Nasty did a better job of the poll options than I did.  I think a vote should be made with those options unless anyone has any specific objections.

Yeah, I like the list. I think variants may be a little more complicated then people want so the regional classes is what I'm going for now. Again. I flip flop more then John Kerry.

Quote from: Natural 20Alright, Nasty did a better job of the poll options than I did.  I think a vote should be made with those options unless anyone has any specific objections.

All I did was seperate them and give examples. I still used the same basic thing you posted. I just wanted more "poll friendly" options. ;)

-Nasty-

The problem with the Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, and Druid is that they are divine classes and draw their power, some of it at least, from a divine source. Ranger's aren't just scouts (you can build a fair scout with a Rogue as long as you give them survival as a class skill), Rangers are hunters who emulate nature, and through this close association they gain magical power.

I think the classes need to be defined as well. Sure, Miko had paladin levels (and monk levels) and called herself a Samurai. That's perfectly fine; the D&D Paladin is a romanticized portrayal of a Knight, and a Samurai is the cultural equivalent of a Knight; just like the Blackguard is a romanticized portrayal of fallen knights, which would mirror Ronin in the east.

Knights just don't work in wild cultures. Barbarians may fill the same cultural position as a Knight in a wild culture; Barbarians are sort of the opposite of a Knight, it just gets difficult to define because the D&D "Knight" is the Paladin, whose a divine class.

If we want scouts, use Rogues or the Scout from CA. Rangers are more than scouts. Paladins are currently more than Knights; I have a Knight class, several others on the WotC boards have a Knight, and the PHB2 will have a Knight.

I vote for cultural class differentiations on some classes. Fighters and Rogues should be everywhere, no questions about it. Wizards should be more common in civilized areas, sorcerers may be more common in wild areas (if the civilized areas has demonized sorcerers, if they assume sorcerers are unstable and chaotic). In my opinion, druids (and thus rangers by association) should be wild, clerics (and paladins) should be imperial. This doesn't mean that there won't be members of these classes in the wrong place; they're travelers, adventurers, retirees, or people who just don't fit in. But they won't be the norm.

Now, I understand that I come off quite stubborn, but I can be persuaded. If we'd rather discuss instead of vote, I'm ears. Currently, with the twin pantheon set up (Imperial vs. Totems), it makes sense to use two different classes.

Again, this is just my opinion; If I've persuaded anyone towards it, that's fine. If others wish to persuade me against it, that's fine too.

Xev your stance is quite valid, and while I'd like to see things a bit different, I don't feel like I should debate the the virtues of what I want to see vs. what you would like to see. Neither of us is wrong, so what's the point. We should just go with the vote. I think I summed up the various proposals, and I even left a spot for "other," if somebody doesn't want to pursue any of the class formats we've discussed so far.

I'll be more than happy to pursue this option, if it wins the vote.

-Nasty-

Xev, you've managed to do a nice summary of somehting I could deal with.  I'm not particularly opposed to dividing the classes, as long as there is room for people of the imperial class on the "wild side" and vice-versa.

Just a brief statement so you all know my feelings on this.  I personaly advocate using all aclasses everywhere and defing their roles "In-vharacter".

I have no problem differentiating culturally between classes; definitely, some cultures should have certain classes more prominent, and others should have other classes more prominent.  I don't think, however, that that means that we should not have paladins in the city-states, and not have barbarians in the BFG.  They are just more rare is all.  We should seriously take a look at Midnight and Eberron when we get these classes worked out, and should write up the roles that each class plays in our campaign world; not what they typically play in others.  We could even divide it.  We could write up the paladin, what she believes, and what her special campaign-based abilities are (if any), and then we could tell how a paladin plays in the BFG, and how one plays in the city-states.

Ooh... I love it Ishmayl.  If people give me ideas on those hings, when we get around to writing them up, I can make them sound really cool.  Thos little bits of fluff are always my favorite, and it'd be nice to get a chance to write some...

Ishy said the exact same thing I already suggested about "Iconic roles, with certain individual exceptions." It's in the poll options I proposed as well. It seems the two of us see eye to eye on many ideas so far. I still say we put this to a vote though.

-Nasty-

See... I don't think we should go with the core classes in the fact that each society needs the roles of other classes and we can't split them up and give them different powers. It'd make the world too unbalanced, however, it'd make the game more diverse and real.

Quote from: nastynateIshy said the exact same thing I already suggested about "Iconic roles, with certain individual exceptions." It's in the poll options I proposed as well. It seems the two of us see eye to eye on many ideas so far. I still say we put this to a vote though.

i think that will be my vote.  i honestly dont mind a few exceptions..  i just dont want anyone to try to re-work then entire class structure, making it more difficult than it needs to be.

Quote from: xeviatThe problem with the Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, and Druid is that they are divine classes and draw their power, some of it at least, from a divine source. Ranger's aren't just scouts (you can build a fair scout with a Rogue as long as you give them survival as a class skill), Rangers are hunters who emulate nature, and through this close association they gain magical power.

that's the default dnd flavor, though. (Or really, more like forgotten realms flavor.)

We could easily say that Paladins draw their magic from their intense, personal belief in justice, and that rangers have just spent so much time in the wild that they learn how to work the innate magic present in the wilderness (or SOMETHING like that.) We could COMPLETELY take deities out of the equation for those classes, just like they're out of the equation for sorcerers and bards.

So we could say the imperials have a group, that believes heavily in justice. they gain divine powers from that, not from the saints (though they could follow a saint as well). A paladin could exist in the city-states, but they have to believe in justice as a universal concept, not just as an extension of their totem.

You seem to be arguing for classes as representing organizations/cultural values--can we not handle that in prestige classes, rather than base? it seems like that would be less controversial, while still representing the two trains of thought here.

I definitely like the idea better that these so-called "pseudo-divine" classes benefit from natural sources that aren't deitific in nature.  The paladin's could be along the lines of the monk's supernatural abilities; after years of training and perfecting his body and soul, the paladin is able to tap into the mystical side of his spirit... or something along those lines.

Quote from: IshmaylI definitely like the idea better that these so-called "pseudo-divine" classes benefit from natural sources that aren't deitific in nature.  The paladin's could be along the lines of the monk's supernatural abilities; after years of training and perfecting his body and soul, the paladin is able to tap into the mystical side of his spirit... or something along those lines.

We've been going round and round with these ideas for a while now. We already discussed this option, and I not only agree, but whole-heartedly agree. Anyone seen Turin? We need to put the vote up, rather than spin our wheels talking about the same things over and over.

-Nasty-

Argh! What do we want?!

The monky kind of classes sound like a good idea for the totem classes or the variants for the totem people or the whatever the hell else was discussed.

Turin seems to have a life...damn him!

-Nasty-

Hehe sorry guys. You might have noticed by now that I'm mostly only on on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. As the discussion doesn't seem to progress much anymore, I'll put up the vote using the options as nastynate worded them.

Túrin

Have we ultimately decided on the nature of the cleric and druid yet? Where they draw their power from, and all that? I really think there needs to be a religious division between these two classes.

I don't think we've really decided on anything magic-related yet... I think we should really put a little thought into the kind of role that magic plays in the world, and how it affects the classes and the masses.

Quote from: IshmaylI don't think we've really decided on anything magic-related yet... I think we should really put a little thought into the kind of role that magic plays in the world, and how it affects the classes and the masses.

Sounds like a good idea. I'll start a thread.

-Nasty-