I mean I play quite a lot of WoD (or CofD as it is these days) and it's my view that the majority of their game lines work much better if you don't assume they're set in the same world
In my Mage games, don't bother referring to the Vampire, Werewolf and so on books. In my Werewolf game, there might be Vampires, there could be some sorcerers out there, but the existing lines are not them, etc etc etc
DnD I think worked fine in that you originally had Warrior, Mage, Thief and then you expanded into various types of fighty, casty and sneaky types, but honestly I kind of feel like if you make too many classes then you end up restricting the existing ones. When Rangers came into existence, Fighters couldn't be Rangers, because Rangers were Rangers (as opposed to the fighting guy class, but constructed as a lightly armoured character with survival skills). One thing I do like about 5e is that it tells all the prestige classes to get fucked, which is good, it means you don't need to take a prestige class to do a thing. You can be a Rogue with some spells if you want.
+1
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I sort of agree with that but also disagree. The WoD example is a problem because the Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, etc games are fundamentally different. You're exploring different ideas of humanity and inhumanity, different parts of the human world and underworld, and so on. Merging all those together could be interesting, but it would form a fundamentally different game and you'd need an additional conceit to make that work.. Monsterhearts, for example, could be seen as a remix of the World of Darkness focused on high school. Urban Shadows could be seen as the same, but for urban fantasy.
But all the mechanical parts of D&D that get pulled in are still just D&D. Bards and Druids are no less dungeon-and-wilderness-exploring murderhobos than Fighters and Clerics, they just go about it in a different way.
The analogy of it got away from me for a bit, I'll admit.
But also everyone I know who plays WoD has been in one disastrous game where multiple lines of it are merged together, which I realize might not be an experience that everyone has.
Edit: Also a part of the reason I called out bard specifically was because I would say that the bard is a part of the D&D shift to not just being about crawling through dungeons. They're ostensibly at least partially based on social skills and interacting with people.
I mean I play quite a lot of WoD (or CofD as it is these days) and it's my view that the majority of their game lines work much better if you don't assume they're set in the same world
In my Mage games, don't bother referring to the Vampire, Werewolf and so on books. In my Werewolf game, there might be Vampires, there could be some sorcerers out there, but the existing lines are not them, etc etc etc
DnD I think worked fine in that you originally had Warrior, Mage, Thief and then you expanded into various types of fighty, casty and sneaky types, but honestly I kind of feel like if you make too many classes then you end up restricting the existing ones. When Rangers came into existence, Fighters couldn't be Rangers, because Rangers were Rangers (as opposed to the fighting guy class, but constructed as a lightly armoured character with survival skills). One thing I do like about 5e is that it tells all the prestige classes to get fucked, which is good, it means you don't need to take a prestige class to do a thing. You can be a Rogue with some spells if you want.
This is actually something a bunch of the cooler Starfinder feats run into: by saying that you can take a feat to be able to charisma someone into attacking their friends you imply that you can't do that by default.
Bards are kind of my go to example of why I don't like classes
Because really a Bard, in a classless game, is someone who spent some XP on fighting, some XP on skills, and some XP on magic, so they are well balanced and can do various things
Whereas in DnD if you want to play that character you have to play a Bard which comes with certain elements you might not like, such as the performance and the Bardic knowledge and the music and all that stuff. Which can be cool! But isn't always what you want. If you don't want you need to do some sort of multi-class fuckery and that is almost always a bad idea because of the way that classes and levels interact, which means if you aren't developing some sort of specific "build" (an issue with DnD in general) then multi-classing is often a shit opportunity cost.
Example; In our game right now, I am a Level 5 Paladin. I'm also Dex 20 and quite like being a fast, stealthy, athletic Paladin and theoretically I could take a level in Rogue, except if I did that would mean that next level I wouldn't get the Charisma Modifier to saving throws, the additional spells which are key for the class as smites and such, etc etc etc. Basically multi-classing is mechanically unappealing and that means I'm pushed towards playing a pure Paladin. Which is too restrictive for my liking.
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Bards are one of my go-to focuses on why I don't like a lot of things in D&D
But I'm approaching it from the opposite direction, because I don't want the fighting or the magic, I just want to play a character who sings songs and runs cons
Yo I was up super early to go to work and this thread had like 65 posts between 9pm Sunday and 4am today but I come home and it's up to 90. I'm perplexed as all get out and then I see it.
"The Fighter"
Look, I'm sorry I mentioned 4e's trip/disarm/trip Fighter. He had options and was good, but that is obviously bad for "traditional D&D." You know, where you called Gary Gygax at home, asked him how to rule on something, and he would Socratically ask "Well how did you handle it?" and no matter what your answer was he'd reply "That sounds good."
Bards are one of my go-to focuses on why I don't like a lot of things in D&D
But I'm approaching it from the opposite direction, because I don't want the fighting or the magic, I just want to play a character who sings songs and runs cons
That's a rogue with the minstrel background... like it isn't hard to make these characters within a class based system.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Bards are one of my go-to focuses on why I don't like a lot of things in D&D
But I'm approaching it from the opposite direction, because I don't want the fighting or the magic, I just want to play a character who sings songs and runs cons
That's a rogue with the minstrel background... like it isn't hard to make these characters within a class based system.
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I think there's some problems with D&D on the difference between what makes a class special and what makes a class functional.
I almost always only really care about the first part, for instance.
If I'm playing a bard, it's because I want to play a character who is a professional performer. No other class is that (theoretically, at least). If I'm playing a druid, it's because I want to turn into a lion and bat around goblins like overgrown mice. If I'm playing a thief, it's because I want to play a character who is an adept second-story man (or what have you).
But the game demands function, and those are not functional in their own right. So bards and druids are now able to cast spells, and that simple stealthy acrobat is now an expert in puncturing arteries as well. Those are the sort of things that make you functional in D&D, a game focused on combat. This is part of the reason I don't like fighters or wizards. They're just the function in many iterations of the game (especially fighters).
Obviously, this is just the way I approach games. It's reasonable to be into the function of games, but if you are into function, not every game is going to be great for you. I think class based stuff is potentially less likely to work for you, in that instance (at least based on my experience).
I mean I play quite a lot of WoD (or CofD as it is these days) and it's my view that the majority of their game lines work much better if you don't assume they're set in the same world
In my Mage games, don't bother referring to the Vampire, Werewolf and so on books. In my Werewolf game, there might be Vampires, there could be some sorcerers out there, but the existing lines are not them, etc etc etc
DnD I think worked fine in that you originally had Warrior, Mage, Thief and then you expanded into various types of fighty, casty and sneaky types, but honestly I kind of feel like if you make too many classes then you end up restricting the existing ones. When Rangers came into existence, Fighters couldn't be Rangers, because Rangers were Rangers (as opposed to the fighting guy class, but constructed as a lightly armoured character with survival skills). One thing I do like about 5e is that it tells all the prestige classes to get fucked, which is good, it means you don't need to take a prestige class to do a thing. You can be a Rogue with some spells if you want.
This is actually something a bunch of the cooler Starfinder feats run into: by saying that you can take a feat to be able to charisma someone into attacking their friends you imply that you can't do that by default.
And that's absolutely a thing
When Eclipse Phase did a beta test of their players guide, I made this argument. You could take a positive trait which meant you could use Free-Running to drop onto someone in a fight and do bonus damage with unarmed or melee attacks. The reason that I did not like this was that in the game before this trait was released, you could do that anyway. It was not something you had to buy, you could just do it. Now, it kind of feels like you need to buy it, because if the GM just lets you do it anyway, why bother purchasing the trait?
By putting mechanics into a purchaseable ability or class, you make them available in a sense, but also make them unavailable in another sense. And that can often suck. Bards existing means that people who cast arcane magic through song are basically pushed into being Bards. They mean that people who want to be fighter/caster/thieves are also pushed into being Bards. I don't really like that. Which is why I'm fine with playing DnD for a bit, it's a novelty, and 5e is the best edition so far, the campaign has been great... but I wouldn't want to run it, or play it more than once every few years.
If I'm playing a bard, it's because I want to play a character who is a professional performer. No other class is that (theoretically, at least).
The Profession skill enters, looks around at the chaos, and leaves smiling.
To be fair the archetypes laid out for D&D are a weird mix of origins, but if I'm playing a Bard, I'm probably looking more for something like Vainamoinen: a magical dude with phat lute skills looking to acquire phat lewt.
The whole point is that archetypes can mean a lot of things all at once and how individuals interpret them shouldn't result in cognitive dissonance between how they play and how they're represented in the game's mythos.
Anyone have an opinion on running a one-on-one game using Mage the Ascension? I have a signed copy that I got in a past CF Secret Santa that I've been wanting to crack open for a while. Thinking about running a little something for my girlfriend.
If I'm playing a bard, it's because I want to play a character who is a professional performer. No other class is that (theoretically, at least).
The Profession skill enters, looks around at the chaos, and leaves smiling.
To be fair the archetypes laid out for D&D are a weird mix of origins, but if I'm playing a Bard, I'm probably looking more for something like Vainamoinen: a magical dude with phat lute skills looking to acquire phat lewt.
The whole point is that archetypes can mean a lot of things all at once and how individuals interpret them shouldn't result in cognitive dissonance between how they play and how they're represented in the game's mythos.
Except by having those archetypes wide enough to cover all of those interpretations, you've created a compromise where nobody is particularly happy - Solar wants to play a character who is good at fighting and magic, you want to play a character who is good at magic and music, and I want to play a character who is really just good at playing music.
If I'm playing a bard, it's because I want to play a character who is a professional performer. No other class is that (theoretically, at least).
The Profession skill enters, looks around at the chaos, and leaves smiling.
To be fair the archetypes laid out for D&D are a weird mix of origins, but if I'm playing a Bard, I'm probably looking more for something like Vainamoinen: a magical dude with phat lute skills looking to acquire phat lewt.
The whole point is that archetypes can mean a lot of things all at once and how individuals interpret them shouldn't result in cognitive dissonance between how they play and how they're represented in the game's mythos.
Except by having those archetypes wide enough to cover all of those interpretations, you've created a compromise where nobody is particularly happy - Solar wants to play a character who is good at fighting and magic, you want to play a character who is good at magic and music, and I want to play a character who is really just good at playing music.
@Straightzi, is there a distinct reason why you couldn't play a Rogue with the Entertainer background and expertise in the performance skill?
I know you don't want your character to also be a sneaky-assassin, but couldn't you just not access that side of the class?
Just actively decide to not utilize those abilities?
You could take the Mastermind subclass and just be a guy who helps his friends & plays music very well.
If I'm playing a bard, it's because I want to play a character who is a professional performer. No other class is that (theoretically, at least).
The Profession skill enters, looks around at the chaos, and leaves smiling.
To be fair the archetypes laid out for D&D are a weird mix of origins, but if I'm playing a Bard, I'm probably looking more for something like Vainamoinen: a magical dude with phat lute skills looking to acquire phat lewt.
The whole point is that archetypes can mean a lot of things all at once and how individuals interpret them shouldn't result in cognitive dissonance between how they play and how they're represented in the game's mythos.
Except by having those archetypes wide enough to cover all of those interpretations, you've created a compromise where nobody is particularly happy - Solar wants to play a character who is good at fighting and magic, you want to play a character who is good at magic and music, and I want to play a character who is really just good at playing music.
All of those characters can be achieved with the Bard mechanics (in -- and I'll probably regret this -- every edition of D&D) provided the player and the DM are imaginative about how the character's actions manifest within the mythos of the world they inhabit.
Solar's bard is basically a blue mage. They have a limited spell list tied to reasonable combat efficacy, but that spell list isn't necessarily enforced. You can make 1:1 swaps from the Wizard spell list without breaking things in most editions.
Your bard is essentially a guy whose music does things he doesn't necessarily intend because [reasons]. If that's not what you want, you CAN play a commoner with a performance background/skill.
My bard is the bard as presented in most editions. A mix of spellcasting, magical music, and staff-based beatdowns.
Yo I was up super early to go to work and this thread had like 65 posts between 9pm Sunday and 4am today but I come home and it's up to 90. I'm perplexed as all get out and then I see it.
"The Fighter"
Look, I'm sorry I mentioned 4e's trip/disarm/trip Fighter. He had options and was good, but that is obviously bad for "traditional D&D." You know, where you called Gary Gygax at home, asked him how to rule on something, and he would Socratically ask "Well how did you handle it?" and no matter what your answer was he'd reply "That sounds good."
To be fair, Pathfinder lets you make those flavors of fighters pretty easily. I've made at least four or five distinctly different PF fighters at this point.
I don't really like the D&D bard class archetype, it's always felt like a muddled jack of all trades with a real thin performer themed coat of paint. That's just my opinion though.
+1
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
If I'm playing a bard, it's because I want to play a character who is a professional performer. No other class is that (theoretically, at least).
The Profession skill enters, looks around at the chaos, and leaves smiling.
To be fair the archetypes laid out for D&D are a weird mix of origins, but if I'm playing a Bard, I'm probably looking more for something like Vainamoinen: a magical dude with phat lute skills looking to acquire phat lewt.
The whole point is that archetypes can mean a lot of things all at once and how individuals interpret them shouldn't result in cognitive dissonance between how they play and how they're represented in the game's mythos.
Except by having those archetypes wide enough to cover all of those interpretations, you've created a compromise where nobody is particularly happy - Solar wants to play a character who is good at fighting and magic, you want to play a character who is good at magic and music, and I want to play a character who is really just good at playing music.
@Straightzi, is there a distinct reason why you couldn't play a Rogue with the Entertainer background and expertise in the performance skill?
I know you don't want your character to also be a sneaky-assassin, but couldn't you just not access that side of the class?
Just actively decide to not utilize those abilities?
You could take the Mastermind subclass and just be a guy who helps his friends & plays music very well.
At that point you're playing a character that aggressively does not play D&D, and you're prolly just better off not playing D&D.
If I'm playing a bard, it's because I want to play a character who is a professional performer. No other class is that (theoretically, at least).
The Profession skill enters, looks around at the chaos, and leaves smiling.
To be fair the archetypes laid out for D&D are a weird mix of origins, but if I'm playing a Bard, I'm probably looking more for something like Vainamoinen: a magical dude with phat lute skills looking to acquire phat lewt.
The whole point is that archetypes can mean a lot of things all at once and how individuals interpret them shouldn't result in cognitive dissonance between how they play and how they're represented in the game's mythos.
Except by having those archetypes wide enough to cover all of those interpretations, you've created a compromise where nobody is particularly happy - Solar wants to play a character who is good at fighting and magic, you want to play a character who is good at magic and music, and I want to play a character who is really just good at playing music.
Straightzi, is there a distinct reason why you couldn't play a Rogue with the Entertainer background and expertise in the performance skill?
I know you don't want your character to also be a sneaky-assassin, but couldn't you just not access that side of the class?
Just actively decide to not utilize those abilities?
You could take the Mastermind subclass and just be a guy who helps his friends & plays music very well.
This sort of thing is exactly what I have done, historically, but
If I'm playing a bard, it's because I want to play a character who is a professional performer. No other class is that (theoretically, at least).
The Profession skill enters, looks around at the chaos, and leaves smiling.
To be fair the archetypes laid out for D&D are a weird mix of origins, but if I'm playing a Bard, I'm probably looking more for something like Vainamoinen: a magical dude with phat lute skills looking to acquire phat lewt.
The whole point is that archetypes can mean a lot of things all at once and how individuals interpret them shouldn't result in cognitive dissonance between how they play and how they're represented in the game's mythos.
Except by having those archetypes wide enough to cover all of those interpretations, you've created a compromise where nobody is particularly happy - Solar wants to play a character who is good at fighting and magic, you want to play a character who is good at magic and music, and I want to play a character who is really just good at playing music.
Straightzi, is there a distinct reason why you couldn't play a Rogue with the Entertainer background and expertise in the performance skill?
I know you don't want your character to also be a sneaky-assassin, but couldn't you just not access that side of the class?
Just actively decide to not utilize those abilities?
You could take the Mastermind subclass and just be a guy who helps his friends & plays music very well.
At that point you're playing a character that aggressively does not play D&D, and you're prolly just better off not playing D&D.
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Kingdom death?
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
The thing that Dungeon World made me realize about classes, was that I didn't actually dislike the concept, but the execution.
I dislike classes as personal occupation, but I really enjoy classes as narrative archetype.
It's kind of a subtle distinction, but it makes a whole lot of difference.
Okay but those aren't classes you see those are playboo--sorry I can't do it, it's just too douchey. That concept does tend to be a major aspect of PbtA games, though, and it's very good.
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Kingdom death?
Kingdom Death has a really slick art style and super detailed minis and is apparently a pretty decent game but also costs £300 for a base game
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Kingdom death?
Kingdom Death has a really slick art style and super detailed minis and is apparently a pretty decent game but also costs £300 for a base game
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Good luck
+2
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Classes as a narrative archetype, since it was brought up, can double get fucked more respectfully of the tastes of others, is not my cup of tea
Yeah, narrative archetypes are all I really care about, most days
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
I just am glad that at this point in time there are games that cater to all our tastes, or pretty damn close and with the internet allow us access to players across the globe.
The 80s and 90s were rough if you weren't down for d&d or a handful of other games that were popular enough to get stocked at the local game store. Or even worse is if they had your particular jam but you couldn't find a group to play it. I had a couple different RPG books growing up, but nobody to play them with.
I wish my DM was willing to branch out a bit. He is an amazing DM but 3, 3.5 and 5th edition D&D is all he's ever known and is comfortable with. I love the group I'm in, but I would like a bit of variety too.
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Kingdom death?
Kingdom Death has a really slick art style and super detailed minis and is apparently a pretty decent game but also costs £300 for a base game
Which is a lot
Also you cannot buy it fresh and new
You can soon pre-order 1.5 core box.
Why
Why do you hate me so to tell me this
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
I just am glad that at this point in time there are games that cater to all our tastes, or pretty damn close and with the internet allow us access to players across the globe.
The 80s and 90s were rough if you weren't down for d&d or a handful of other games that were popular enough to get stocked at the local game store. Or even worse is if they had your particular jam but you couldn't find a group to play it. I had a couple different RPG books growing up, but nobody to play them with.
I wish my DM was willing to branch out a bit. He is an amazing DM but 3, 3.5 and 5th edition D&D is all he's ever known and is comfortable with. I love the group I'm in, but I would like a bit of variety too.
I'm in the opposite realm.
I sincerely don't believe my players would invest the energy to learn any system that isn't D&D.
+1
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited September 2017
I like archetypes in fiction, especially certain kinds of fiction. They help mediate the experience, communicating the rules of the story to the audience, shaping their expectations and reactions. And I like classes in RPGs when they map to strong, recognizable archetypes - big tough person, wily trickster, peacemaker, etc. They describe both your function in the game and what you might be doing in the story, and those things should be harmonious - a tough guy should feel tough in play, an ace pilot probably shouldn't have a 30% chance of crashing during a routine landing, etc. Ideally the mechanics should gently nudge the players and characters in directions congruent with the story content ("I'm a big tough guy, I can take the hit, so I'll dive in front of Bumbles the Bard!") but also without being too restrictive or locking other people out of options that they should have ("only fighters can punch. Ever.")
There isn't–and how could there be?–a strong storytelling archetype to match every possible combination of mechanical widgetry, but to me, that's fundamentally okay. D&D threads are full of people sharing their clever mechanics concept–"hee hee, guys, I rolled up a cleric who throws polo mallets and crits on a 15! LOL!"–but, like, that's not a character, that's a gimmick. The player's mastery of the rules to construct that gimmick might be legitimately impressive in the abstract but unless you're playing a purely tactical, skirmish game, there probably needs to be more meat on those bones; otherwise that player's group is in for 200+ hours of "is the orc in mallet range yet?" and "does the shop sell enchanted mallets?"
(I suspect this is why you hear about these ideas way more often than you hear about these characters actually being played.)
For that reason, as well as general mechanical balance, I would rather err on the side of too few classes than too many, because when classes proliferate out to the horizon the way they do in 3.x/Pathfinder, you lose the focus and organization that makes them useful in the first place, but at the same time I like having a breadth of options within a class. There are lots of pretty good ways to do this. I like the way 4E was designed around only four core mechanical roles and classes represented different ways to fulfill that role's mandate; I also like 5E's subclasses. FFG Star Wars does something similar with its broad "careers" (i.e., smuggler) and narrower "specializations" (gambler, freighter captain, con artist). Even the One Ring, while classless in the traditional sense, asks you to kind of predispose yourself a certain way with your choice of culture but then lets you customize yourself within that broader space.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
I just am glad that at this point in time there are games that cater to all our tastes, or pretty damn close and with the internet allow us access to players across the globe.
The 80s and 90s were rough if you weren't down for d&d or a handful of other games that were popular enough to get stocked at the local game store. Or even worse is if they had your particular jam but you couldn't find a group to play it. I had a couple different RPG books growing up, but nobody to play them with.
I wish my DM was willing to branch out a bit. He is an amazing DM but 3, 3.5 and 5th edition D&D is all he's ever known and is comfortable with. I love the group I'm in, but I would like a bit of variety too.
I'm in the opposite realm.
I sincerely don't believe my players would invest the energy to learn any system that isn't D&D.
Yeah I can see that. I think mine would be willing to learn if our DM was eager.
Posts
In my Mage games, don't bother referring to the Vampire, Werewolf and so on books. In my Werewolf game, there might be Vampires, there could be some sorcerers out there, but the existing lines are not them, etc etc etc
DnD I think worked fine in that you originally had Warrior, Mage, Thief and then you expanded into various types of fighty, casty and sneaky types, but honestly I kind of feel like if you make too many classes then you end up restricting the existing ones. When Rangers came into existence, Fighters couldn't be Rangers, because Rangers were Rangers (as opposed to the fighting guy class, but constructed as a lightly armoured character with survival skills). One thing I do like about 5e is that it tells all the prestige classes to get fucked, which is good, it means you don't need to take a prestige class to do a thing. You can be a Rogue with some spells if you want.
The analogy of it got away from me for a bit, I'll admit.
But also everyone I know who plays WoD has been in one disastrous game where multiple lines of it are merged together, which I realize might not be an experience that everyone has.
Edit: Also a part of the reason I called out bard specifically was because I would say that the bard is a part of the D&D shift to not just being about crawling through dungeons. They're ostensibly at least partially based on social skills and interacting with people.
This is actually something a bunch of the cooler Starfinder feats run into: by saying that you can take a feat to be able to charisma someone into attacking their friends you imply that you can't do that by default.
Because really a Bard, in a classless game, is someone who spent some XP on fighting, some XP on skills, and some XP on magic, so they are well balanced and can do various things
Whereas in DnD if you want to play that character you have to play a Bard which comes with certain elements you might not like, such as the performance and the Bardic knowledge and the music and all that stuff. Which can be cool! But isn't always what you want. If you don't want you need to do some sort of multi-class fuckery and that is almost always a bad idea because of the way that classes and levels interact, which means if you aren't developing some sort of specific "build" (an issue with DnD in general) then multi-classing is often a shit opportunity cost.
Example; In our game right now, I am a Level 5 Paladin. I'm also Dex 20 and quite like being a fast, stealthy, athletic Paladin and theoretically I could take a level in Rogue, except if I did that would mean that next level I wouldn't get the Charisma Modifier to saving throws, the additional spells which are key for the class as smites and such, etc etc etc. Basically multi-classing is mechanically unappealing and that means I'm pushed towards playing a pure Paladin. Which is too restrictive for my liking.
But I'm approaching it from the opposite direction, because I don't want the fighting or the magic, I just want to play a character who sings songs and runs cons
I fuckin love bards. Pretty much my go to class.
"The Fighter"
Look, I'm sorry I mentioned 4e's trip/disarm/trip Fighter. He had options and was good, but that is obviously bad for "traditional D&D." You know, where you called Gary Gygax at home, asked him how to rule on something, and he would Socratically ask "Well how did you handle it?" and no matter what your answer was he'd reply "That sounds good."
That's a rogue with the minstrel background... like it isn't hard to make these characters within a class based system.
He doesn't want the fighting.
I almost always only really care about the first part, for instance.
If I'm playing a bard, it's because I want to play a character who is a professional performer. No other class is that (theoretically, at least). If I'm playing a druid, it's because I want to turn into a lion and bat around goblins like overgrown mice. If I'm playing a thief, it's because I want to play a character who is an adept second-story man (or what have you).
But the game demands function, and those are not functional in their own right. So bards and druids are now able to cast spells, and that simple stealthy acrobat is now an expert in puncturing arteries as well. Those are the sort of things that make you functional in D&D, a game focused on combat. This is part of the reason I don't like fighters or wizards. They're just the function in many iterations of the game (especially fighters).
Obviously, this is just the way I approach games. It's reasonable to be into the function of games, but if you are into function, not every game is going to be great for you. I think class based stuff is potentially less likely to work for you, in that instance (at least based on my experience).
And that's absolutely a thing
When Eclipse Phase did a beta test of their players guide, I made this argument. You could take a positive trait which meant you could use Free-Running to drop onto someone in a fight and do bonus damage with unarmed or melee attacks. The reason that I did not like this was that in the game before this trait was released, you could do that anyway. It was not something you had to buy, you could just do it. Now, it kind of feels like you need to buy it, because if the GM just lets you do it anyway, why bother purchasing the trait?
By putting mechanics into a purchaseable ability or class, you make them available in a sense, but also make them unavailable in another sense. And that can often suck. Bards existing means that people who cast arcane magic through song are basically pushed into being Bards. They mean that people who want to be fighter/caster/thieves are also pushed into being Bards. I don't really like that. Which is why I'm fine with playing DnD for a bit, it's a novelty, and 5e is the best edition so far, the campaign has been great... but I wouldn't want to run it, or play it more than once every few years.
To be fair the archetypes laid out for D&D are a weird mix of origins, but if I'm playing a Bard, I'm probably looking more for something like Vainamoinen: a magical dude with phat lute skills looking to acquire phat lewt.
The whole point is that archetypes can mean a lot of things all at once and how individuals interpret them shouldn't result in cognitive dissonance between how they play and how they're represented in the game's mythos.
Except by having those archetypes wide enough to cover all of those interpretations, you've created a compromise where nobody is particularly happy - Solar wants to play a character who is good at fighting and magic, you want to play a character who is good at magic and music, and I want to play a character who is really just good at playing music.
Older systems, especially stuff with "Profession" or "Knowledge" skills cause me to break out in hives now.
@Straightzi, is there a distinct reason why you couldn't play a Rogue with the Entertainer background and expertise in the performance skill?
I know you don't want your character to also be a sneaky-assassin, but couldn't you just not access that side of the class?
Just actively decide to not utilize those abilities?
You could take the Mastermind subclass and just be a guy who helps his friends & plays music very well.
Solar's bard is basically a blue mage. They have a limited spell list tied to reasonable combat efficacy, but that spell list isn't necessarily enforced. You can make 1:1 swaps from the Wizard spell list without breaking things in most editions.
Your bard is essentially a guy whose music does things he doesn't necessarily intend because [reasons]. If that's not what you want, you CAN play a commoner with a performance background/skill.
My bard is the bard as presented in most editions. A mix of spellcasting, magical music, and staff-based beatdowns.
To be fair, Pathfinder lets you make those flavors of fighters pretty easily. I've made at least four or five distinctly different PF fighters at this point.
At that point you're playing a character that aggressively does not play D&D, and you're prolly just better off not playing D&D.
This sort of thing is exactly what I have done, historically, but
I dislike classes as personal occupation, but I really enjoy classes as narrative archetype.
It's kind of a subtle distinction, but it makes a whole lot of difference.
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Kingdom death?
Yeah, likewise on all counts. But you and I agree a whole lot about RPGs, so that ain't surprising.
Okay but those aren't classes you see those are playboo--sorry I can't do it, it's just too douchey. That concept does tend to be a major aspect of PbtA games, though, and it's very good.
Kingdom Death has a really slick art style and super detailed minis and is apparently a pretty decent game but also costs £300 for a base game
Which is a lot
Also you cannot buy it fresh and new
They don't make any goddamn sense outside of that.
*never say every
You can soon pre-order 1.5 core box.
Good luck
Yeah, narrative archetypes are all I really care about, most days
The 80s and 90s were rough if you weren't down for d&d or a handful of other games that were popular enough to get stocked at the local game store. Or even worse is if they had your particular jam but you couldn't find a group to play it. I had a couple different RPG books growing up, but nobody to play them with.
I wish my DM was willing to branch out a bit. He is an amazing DM but 3, 3.5 and 5th edition D&D is all he's ever known and is comfortable with. I love the group I'm in, but I would like a bit of variety too.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Why
Why do you hate me so to tell me this
I'm in the opposite realm.
I sincerely don't believe my players would invest the energy to learn any system that isn't D&D.
There isn't–and how could there be?–a strong storytelling archetype to match every possible combination of mechanical widgetry, but to me, that's fundamentally okay. D&D threads are full of people sharing their clever mechanics concept–"hee hee, guys, I rolled up a cleric who throws polo mallets and crits on a 15! LOL!"–but, like, that's not a character, that's a gimmick. The player's mastery of the rules to construct that gimmick might be legitimately impressive in the abstract but unless you're playing a purely tactical, skirmish game, there probably needs to be more meat on those bones; otherwise that player's group is in for 200+ hours of "is the orc in mallet range yet?" and "does the shop sell enchanted mallets?"
(I suspect this is why you hear about these ideas way more often than you hear about these characters actually being played.)
For that reason, as well as general mechanical balance, I would rather err on the side of too few classes than too many, because when classes proliferate out to the horizon the way they do in 3.x/Pathfinder, you lose the focus and organization that makes them useful in the first place, but at the same time I like having a breadth of options within a class. There are lots of pretty good ways to do this. I like the way 4E was designed around only four core mechanical roles and classes represented different ways to fulfill that role's mandate; I also like 5E's subclasses. FFG Star Wars does something similar with its broad "careers" (i.e., smuggler) and narrower "specializations" (gambler, freighter captain, con artist). Even the One Ring, while classless in the traditional sense, asks you to kind of predispose yourself a certain way with your choice of culture but then lets you customize yourself within that broader space.
Yeah I can see that. I think mine would be willing to learn if our DM was eager.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981