Discussion: Classes

[Túrin]

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).

[brainface]

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.

[Numinous]

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.

[daggerhart]

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.

[Soup Nazi]

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-

[Numinous]

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.

[Wix of Bel-Air]

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.

[Soup Nazi]

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.

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-

[Xeviat]

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.

[Soup Nazi]

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-

[Numinous]

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".

[Ishmayl-Retired]

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.

[Numinous]

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...

[Soup Nazi]

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-

[Wix of Bel-Air]

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.