Discussion: Classes

Xathan · April 02, 2006, 11:37:19 AM

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.

Numinous · April 02, 2006, 11:38:33 AM

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

Ishmayl-Retired · April 02, 2006, 11:41:06 AM

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.

Xathan · April 02, 2006, 12:20:12 PM

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.

daggerhart · April 02, 2006, 12:21:02 PM

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.

Túrin · April 04, 2006, 08:19:19 AM

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

Soup Nazi · April 04, 2006, 08:31:16 AM

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-

daggerhart · April 04, 2006, 08:20:55 PM

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.

Numinous · April 04, 2006, 08:27:49 PM

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.

Ishmayl-Retired · April 05, 2006, 07:33:10 AM

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.

Túrin · April 05, 2006, 07:41:33 AM

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?

Ishmayl-Retired · April 05, 2006, 07:45:41 AM

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).

Ishmayl-Retired · April 05, 2006, 07:47:15 AM

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.

brainface · April 05, 2006, 08:10:32 AM

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.

Túrin · April 05, 2006, 10:37:52 AM

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.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Discussion: Classes

Xathan

Numinous

Ishmayl-Retired

Xathan

daggerhart

Túrin

Soup Nazi

daggerhart

Numinous

Ishmayl-Retired

Túrin

Ishmayl-Retired

Ishmayl-Retired

brainface

Túrin