The Campaign Builder's Guild

OK, as I said in the main Xiluh thread, classes were going to get a bit of special treatment. Well, here it is: a thread devoted to the discussion and development of the classes of Xiluh. This is mostly done because I've noticed most people tend to feel more comfortable reviewing smaller chunks then huge settings, so hopefully isolating the classes might produce some more results.


Copied from the main thread:

Quote from: classesThe role of the paladin has been incorporated into the monk; the "fighting for good because good is good and thats good" class otherwise has no place within Xiluh.

Clerics (which may or may not be replaced at a later date) work as Shamans, and are very highly revered. Clerics gain their powers through long, hard apprenticeships, and their Master trains them in the proper knowledge of the world. Theyre often found at odds with sorcerors and wizards, as the cleric views them as trying to shortcut their way to magic power, which the clerics see as purely divine. Clerics see druids, however, as being very close to themselves, and following similar ideals.


Sorcerors are defined in Xiluh as abberant spellcasters. Unlike Clerics, they did not gain their magical ability through proper apprenticeship, although some have been chosen for such an undertaking due to their inheirant power.

Sorcerors and Wizards are viewed sorts of 'unofficial' shamans. This leads to mixed views, as their power is undeniable, but by some it is also unacceptable. Generally, sorcerors are tried to be turned into clerics, whereas wizards are strongly discouraged in all regions but the towns too small to warrant a cleric.

The line between clerics and druids, flavorwise, is very fine. while druids look at the nature that happens to be divine, clerics look at the divine that happens to be nature. Ultimtely, they are for the same cause, but they see it from different angles. Despite these different perspective, theyre both very aware of how close they are, and this has helped develop a kindredship between the two classes.

So at this point, it should be obvious that I have a fairly decent grasp at the "shaman" classes, and Fighter is generic and self-explainatory (fighters fight) enough to fit more-or-less as-is, and removing Paladin helps cut out alot of problems, but I'm a little stuck on the other classes.

All I can think of for bards is to replace song and lute with chant and drum, and say they're otherwise core, but that seems like a lazy approach. Monks fit in fairly well as-is, but there seems to be some element that sets mesoaerican tone from asian tone that I can't quite grasp. Once I get that one change, I suspect monks will fit in perfectly.

Everything else, I'm at a near total loss. I've almost contemplated ditching alot of classes for new alternatives, but the problems seem to lie more in the fluff then in the crunch.


Any help?

Quote from: sdragon1984Monks fit in fairly well as-is, but there seems to be some element that sets mesoaerican tone from asian tone that I can't quite grasp.

I've almost contemplated ditching alot of classes for new alternatives, but the problems seem to lie more in the fluff then in the crunch.[/quote]
Since you're ditching a lot of D&D's traditional "European" focus for this new one, it would make sense-- and to use familiar crunch would make it easier for players to adapt.

When I think of a "Mesoamerican" setting I think of a lot more jungles and a lot less open space than a "European" setting. This means you could introduce a hunter type, and other types that in a standard D&D game might be confined to sylvan elves or other types who are fond of hanging around in woodlands, as in this game, the "woodlands" are much more widespread and just about everyone would be hanging around there. You could also introduce some elements from the Drow into the culture at large. It fits the elven theme and the human sacrifice element of Mesoamerican culture allows a "darker" influence to pervade.

See, in this kind of setting, clerics being "Shamans" seem almost redundant with the Druids, and I've already thought that Sorcerer's and Wizards were redundant.  I wonder if you almost couldn't ditch the Cleric class completely, and possibly the Wizard.  Have the Shamans be Druids and have either the Sorcerer or the Wizard, but not both.

If you wanted more than one type of spellcaster class, you could always make the division based on something else:

- Using musical ritual vs. using mostly components/artifacts

- What spirits/forces they're appealing to (sort of like the different sects of Clerics, only more formalized, such as if the actual magic spells that can be invoked vary by appealing to different domains of spirits)

- Whether or not the discipline allows and requires animal (or even human) sacrifice

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: sdragon1984Monks fit in fairly well as-is, but there seems to be some element that sets mesoaerican tone from asian tone that I can't quite grasp.

And brightly colorful fruit, yeah. That's what I've been thinking, but I'm not exactly sure how to work it into the flavor of a given class.

Quote from: sdragon1984I've almost contemplated ditching alot of classes for new alternatives, but the problems seem to lie more in the fluff then in the crunch.

And it would make it easier for me to create. So, I think it's pretty much settled that I'm not making all-new classes.

QuoteWhen I think of a "Mesoamerican" setting I think of a lot more jungles and a lot less open space than a "European" setting. This means you could introduce a hunter type, and other types that in a standard D&D game might be confined to sylvan elves or other types who are fond of hanging around in woodlands, as in this game, the "woodlands" are much more widespread and just about everyone would be hanging around there. You could also introduce some elements from the Drow into the culture at large. It fits the elven theme and the human sacrifice element of Mesoamerican culture allows a "darker" influence to pervade.

I like the idea of more jungles. Xiluh has plenty of room for that sort of stuff :)

I'm already working on some ideas for human(oid) sacrifice, but I don't like the idea of having it as something dark. In Xiluh, there's little honor higher then being chosen for sacrifice.


THe whole "hunter" thing seems like it would be a perfect fit for rangers. I could probably see what I could do to work this out a bit more. Thanks for the idea!

Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumSee, in this kind of setting, clerics being "Shamans" seem almost redundant with the Druids, and I've already thought that Sorcerer's and Wizards were redundant.  I wonder if you almost couldn't ditch the Cleric class completely, and possibly the Wizard.  Have the Shamans be Druids and have either the Sorcerer or the Wizard, but not both.

I chose clerics because they seem to have more of a "sanctioned spellcaster" feel to them then druids do. If it was just a general "shaman" approach, I might have gone with druids, but I felt the need for more of an official class of shamans.

Wizardry always felt to me like something that was hidden in musty old towers, which gave it a wonderful place as unsactioned, self-taught shamanism. Once I had different social classifications of shamanism, it was more then easy to have sorcerors as otherwise normal people who developed abberant spellcasting abilities. Almost like mutants in Marvel Comics.

As for druids, I'm contemplating ditching them entirely. Clerics fill the role of official shamans better then druids, and like you said, there's a certain bit of redundancy.

Quote from: sparkletwistIf you wanted more than one type of spellcaster class, you could always make the division based on something else:

- What spirits/forces they're appealing to (sort of like the different sects of Clerics, only more formalized, such as if the actual magic spells that can be invoked vary by appealing to different domains of spirits)

Which is more-or-less the official reason behind the different clerical domains. At least, that's one explaination that's going through my head, anyways.

Quote- Whether or not the discipline allows and requires animal (or even human) sacrifice

I might make it so details like these are things that must be taught (and not self-taught), to stregnthen the distinction between different types of shamans.

Quote from: sdragon1984

Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumSee, in this kind of setting, clerics being "Shamans" seem almost redundant with the Druids, and I've already thought that Sorcerer's and Wizards were redundant.  I wonder if you almost couldn't ditch the Cleric class completely, and possibly the Wizard.  Have the Shamans be Druids and have either the Sorcerer or the Wizard, but not both.

I chose clerics because they seem to have more of a "sanctioned spellcaster" feel to them then druids do. If it was just a general "shaman" approach, I might have gone with druids, but I felt the need for more of an official class of shamans.

Wizardry always felt to me like something that was hidden in musty old towers, which gave it a wonderful place as unsactioned, self-taught shamanism. Once I had different social classifications of shamanism, it was more then easy to have sorcerors as otherwise normal people who developed abberant spellcasting abilities. Almost like mutants in Marvel Comics.

As for druids, I'm contemplating ditching them entirely. Clerics fill the role of official shamans better then druids, and like you said, there's a certain bit of redundancy.

Well, are you going for a sort of X-Men thing with the sorcerers?  It seems a bit out of place, but I suppose that could just be one thing that makes it different from an ACTUAL mesoamerican setting and just a mesoamerican INSPIRED setting.  I though that the idea of Wizards/Sorcerers taking a "shortcut" to power would fit in well as a sort of pact made between the Arcane caster and some magical being.  I think that this would work as a minor tweak to the current fluff behind the sorcerer so that rather than having the blood of some such creature in their veins, they have made a pact with such a creature.  You could bring in Bloodlines and just change the names to have them refer to a pact rather than blood.

I'd like to recommend you replace the Ranger and Bard with spell-less versions of themselves, since you've already dropped the paladin.

In my setting, I've dropped the paladin as well. My world is animistic, so the druid and cleric have been combined into a singular priest. Monk, Fighter, and Barbarian make up the warriors; Noble (spell-less Bard), Rogue, and Hunter (spell-less Ranger) make up the experts; Priest, Wizard, and Sorcerer make up the casters. I don't mean to force my setting's ways on you, it just seems like such a system could really work in your game.

Seraphine: Yes, I'm thinking of an X-Men thing for sorcerors, at least as far as the fact that their powers "just happen". There's bound to be some differences, of course, as words like "mutant" and "genetic" aren't exactly approprite for the setting (for example), but that's close to the general idea.


Xeviat: That's actually not that bad of an idea. One worry I was having was trying to balance between having all spellcasters as different types of shamans (too diverse for the same title), and finding roles for the nonshamanic spellcasters. Magic-less bards and rangers fit that balance wonderfully.

That said, I'm not too sure I like the idea of bards being nobles in Xiluh. I'm now thinking, maybe work up the whole bardic knowledge thing, and making them as some sort of lorekeeper role or something similar.

Since you didn't explicitly volunteer for working on all-new classes specifically for Xiluh, I'm going to leave that open to anybody who wants it, and allow you first chance at that.

You know, for my own reasons I really hate to bring this up, but there is a book that was assigned to my English class called the Storyteller.  It is about this guy and his friend who live in Peru, and the friend joins this Indian tribe in the rain forests and becomes their story-teller, telling their stories around the campfire.

The Bard could take the place of the story-teller.  He wanders to learn new stories to tell and suchlike and so forth.  Or you could eliminate the wandering and have them be storytellers who lead tribal chants (Bardic Music) and tell stories (Bardic Knowledge and Perform).

Okay, reviving this thread, because I think it's worth a little more discussion. First thing is, I'm thinking of changing the title "sorceror" to "shaman adept", for a couple reasons. First, I think it fits the flavor a bit better. Second, I think it's a bit more descriptive. Third, and possibly most superficial, is that it's longer. Hurray for length padding!

I'm also thinking of making a Hunter class. I don't have anything written up on it yet, but I do have some stuff that could easily tie into it.

Seraphine, way late, but the Storyteller-Bard thing sounds like an interesting idea. I might go with that, but I haven't decided yet.

Does anybody have any thoughts to add to this discussion?

Hunter sounds like it would be a lot like Ranger.

I think just "Shaman" is better than Shaman Adept, which sounds more like a specialized or even student shaman.

Are these 3.X classes?

A story-bard does indeed sound cool.

They're based off the core 3.x classes, but they're a little... re-branded.

A Shaman Adept is basically a pre-student shaman. It's the ability to wield magic without any sort of training. As Seraphine suggested, there's a bit of an X-Men/mutant thing, here.

Give any consideration to 4e? I only ask, because if you are re balancing anyway, it might make it easier in a system designed more with balance in mind.

Actually, that does bring to mind the potential game balance issue of a storytelling bard. If the main power of a class is not combat-worthy, you run into the fallacy of saying something is balanced out-of-combat with something balanced for combat. Better for all characters to have stuff to do in and out of combat.