Sword and sorcery classes.

[AgeOfFable]

Given the stated aim of the game to be like the stories in Appendix N, I think it would be good to have a section giving alternatives to the demi-human racial classes. Perhaps there could be Barbarian, Pict and Decadent classes that are similar to Dwarf, Halfling and Elf respectively?

[finarvyn]

Given the stated aim of the game to be like the stories in Appendix N, I think it would be good to have a section giving alternatives to the demi-human racial classes. Perhaps there could be Barbarian, Pict and Decadent classes that are similar to Dwarf, Halfling and Elf respectively?

I believe that Joseph's plan is to establish a core rules set of a reasonable size and if 3rd party groups want to build onto the rules to add on extra classes, etc, they can do so. He doesn't want to create a game that has everything in it -- other RPGs try to do that already and they are really huge.

[goodmangames]

Finarvyn hit the nail on the head. That said, I love the idea of a Pict and Decadent class. Thank you for "getting" Appendix N. And please feel free to contribute by posting your own ideas on such classes! They're beyond the scope of the DCC RPG (which I am intentionally keeping fairly streamlined) but I bet there are folks who would appreciate them.

[finarvyn]

Finarvyn hit the nail on the head.

It's that "Minister of Propaganda" thing. It's my starting profession, and because of that I get a hammer.

[orcface999]

I thought you started with a Pack of Lies in propaganda...

[finarvyn]

I thought you started with a Pack of Lies in propaganda...

See, I'd never confess to it even if I had one. That's a big part of what I do.

[Sunsword]

I think the Warrior does a great job of covering the Barbarian. This is the first "Fighter" class, that to me, really lets you be a bad@$$, according the fiction that inspired the game.

Pict & Decadent would be sweet.

[finarvyn]

I think the Warrior does a great job of covering the Barbarian.

I would agree. At what point did players get the idea that every character has to be a specialist at something? In the 1970's we started out with the Fighting Man as a class that could represent a knight, a barbarian, a gladiator, a soldier, a swashbucking pirate, or any of a number of types. What does it matter that the fundamental rules were the same for all of the options? You came up with a character concept, then you played it.

Then Greyhawk came up with Paladins. Strategic Review came up with Rangers. Unearthed Arcana gave us the Chavalier. More and more classes, each with special things it could do better than everyone else. Eventually, we reached the point where no one really wants to play a Fighting Man anymore because it's not special. Why would you ever want to play a Fighting Man? As a Paladin you could lay on hands. As a Ranger you could track and get that extra hit die. At high levels, those classes could even cast spells! The fighter might as well have been taken out of the rules altogether.

The same argument can be made for other classes, by the way. The specialist wizards of AD&D (perhaps 2E, I forget) could get more spells if they limited their spell list choices. The 3E sorcerer got more spells at lower levels. More, more, more.

Now we have a chance to start over with DCC. Is it a good thing to create a whole steaming pile of amped-up optional classes, or is it better to develop the basics and encourage players to inject personality into them? Personally, I think it would be good for people to actually playtest some of the options out there already rather than dream up new ones.

Just my two coppers.

[jmucchiello]

Now we have a chance to start over with DCC. Is it a good thing to create a whole steaming pile of amped-up optional classes, or is it better to develop the basics and encourage players to inject personality into them? Personally, I think it would be good for people to actually playtest some of the options out there already rather than dream up new ones.

Just my two coppers.

I both agree and disagree. The difference between a barbarian and a ranger can easily be attributed to personality and weapon choice. The difference between a shapeshifter druid and cleric, not so easily. New classes are necessary when vastly different abilities are needed.

I haven't committed myself to it yet (as I still can only see half the game system with the beta). But I'd like to create a gnome "race" that specialized in illusion. Instead of corruption, they just go insane and lose touch with reality. A shapeshifter class (named druid or not) that becomes more animistic over time seems like an awesome fit for DCCRPG. These kinds of ideas do not lend themselves to the "standard seven" as personality quirks. (I suppose a patron-specific corruption chart for the illusionist could work but I'm still on the fence about that.)

[Harley Stroh]

[I haven't committed myself to it yet (as I still can only see half the game system with the beta). But I'd like to create a gnome "race" that specialized in illusion. Instead of corruption, they just go insane and lose touch with reality. A shapeshifter class (named druid or not) that becomes more animistic over time seems like an awesome fit for DCCRPG. These kinds of ideas do not lend themselves to the "standard seven" as personality quirks. (I suppose a patron-specific corruption chart for the illusionist could work but I'm still on the fence about that.)

Write up the pdf, publish to RPGNow and make a killing off of Gnomeboy!

//H

[jmucchiello]

But I haven't published a new book on RPGNow in 5 or 6 years. It'll break my streak.

[finarvyn]

I'd like to create a gnome "race" that specialized in illusion. Instead of corruption, they just go insane and lose touch with reality. A shapeshifter class (named druid or not) that becomes more animistic over time seems like an awesome fit for DCCRPG. These kinds of ideas do not lend themselves to the "standard seven" as personality quirks. (I suppose a patron-specific corruption chart for the illusionist could work but I'm still on the fence about that.)

These all sound like fun classes to play, but do they have examples in Appendix N literature? It's possible that creating lots of cool classes may undermine the literary atmosphere that Goodman Games is striving for.

Jedi are cool. Vulcans are cool. Vulcan jedi are neither Star Wars or Star Trek.

Just me thinking out loud...

[jmucchiello]

These all sound like fun classes to play, but do they have examples in Appendix N literature?

Remove the cleric from the core rulebook and I'll except this as a reason not to create gnomish illusionists.

[Troy812]

I say keep the class list short and sweet.
If we start making "Barbarian, Pict and Decadent classes " the field get messy very quickly.

If you must have them, make them an occupation for your level 0 characters.

But really I prefer the purity of a short class list.

T

[AgeOfFable]

They were intended as replacements rather than additions.

[finarvyn]

These all sound like fun classes to play, but do they have examples in Appendix N literature?

Remove the cleric from the core rulebook and I'll except this as a reason not to create gnomish illusionists.

Actually, I started a "kill the cleric" thread back in April with that very suggestion in mind. It was not well received overall because folks like having the cleric in the game, but my contention at the time was that there aren't any good Appendix N examples of Clerics out there.

[jmucchiello]

These all sound like fun classes to play, but do they have examples in Appendix N literature?

Remove the cleric from the core rulebook and I'll except this as a reason not to create gnomish illusionists.

Actually, I started a "kill the cleric" thread back in April with that very suggestion in mind. It was not well received overall because folks like having the cleric in the game, but my contention at the time was that there aren't any good Appendix N examples of Clerics out there.

I know you did. And the result is quite clear. Those same gamers probably want a gnome illusionist too. But saying, "You shouldn't do that. That's not Appendix N." has no teeth as long as the cleric is still in the game.

[GnomeBoy]

...But I'd like to create a gnome "race" that specialized in illusion. Instead of corruption, they just go insane and lose touch with reality... (I suppose a patron-specific corruption chart for the illusionist could work but I'm still on the fence about that.)

Write up the pdf, publish to RPGNow and make a killing off of Gnomeboy!

You'd also save me the time and effort of making my own along those lines anyway...