|
Post by feldrik on Jul 20, 2009 19:51:34 GMT -5
Lack of a healer class is a bit of a turn off for some players. I had one that likes the healer types and it took some real convincing to have him give the game a try. Somewhere on these boards we had a thread about various alternate ways to do a healer. There is also no 'thief' and many assume the Rogue is the same thing. Skills can solve all of these things easily but in 5.5 those need to be house ruled in (I don't care for the option presented). A priest or cleric is a person that is religous and they would have healing skills and probably focus on the support, healing spells when they get them. It does come down to role playing but some written rules on the wherefores and howcomes would have helped a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Jul 20, 2009 20:05:30 GMT -5
Thieves are easy under 7. Any class, with a theivery talent...
But for 5.x, the SA17 article Mirabile Dictu!: Priests as Characters in T&T (Dorothy V. March) was probably the most useful bit for converting several players... it did, however, add a Faith attribute. I think I'd set the requirements differently for priestly magic, especially in 7.X, but without using IQ and DX.
I think perhaps it's time to dust off March's article, and go in slightly different directions.
|
|
|
Post by feldrik on Jul 20, 2009 20:09:49 GMT -5
I don't have 7ed, probably won't get it. 5ed works well. I wish I had the priest article however.
|
|
Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Jul 21, 2009 1:38:50 GMT -5
Machfront... I exalt thee for epic posts of Tolkien proportions...
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Jul 21, 2009 6:32:35 GMT -5
Thanks for the Exalts, fellas. I'm ambivalent about more types. If T&T types were the same as D&D's Classes, I'd be less so. But they aren't. Not really. Types are so incredibly broad it isn't funny. Some old-school D&D'ers see no need for the later-added Thief class, but, in my estimation, with the Thief being a person who's skills are Special Abilities and not just a 'dude that steals', makes the class viable. Perhaps if it was a Specialist for 7.x. The "Professional" type is what I'd use for Thieves...not just thieves, but Thieves. Professional Thieves, at that. ;D I'm far less sure about a cleric/priest type. The SA article is excessively un-T&T. It's way, way, way too detailed and too weighty and complicated. Something like that should be boiled down to it's barest essentials and once you have that, you may as well have an appropriately designed wizard or warrior, or a house ruled Professional or 7th ed Specialist. *shrug* The Cleric may be a mainstay in fantasy rpgs, but in my very humble and dim-witted opinion, it's also a strange out-of-place anomoly. If ever there was a class that had no business being in a game that started the hobby, a game based on and inspired by pulp sword & sorcery literature, it's the cleric. T&T, to me, is even more pulp S&S than D&D has been since about it's place in about '79 or so. Flopping a priest class into T&T's bologna-hole would seem bizarre to me, at best. At least, one that had a feel and design principle that cut close to the D&D model. If it was something quite different (having some sort of Bless, Cleanse and/or Heal abilites that were super/preta-natural), then that would be kinda cool. But what some view as a bug (and so did I once) I now see as a feature. "There's no Paladin." "Where are all the skills?" We know that those things and more are there already. We just need to, or at least should be able to given the opportunity, show other folks that these features are already built in. Some folks will never open their eyes to such views, and they'll be content. That's fine. If they're having fun that way, no one can begrudge that. But when they have their moments of weakness ("I'm weighted down by all these rules.")...this is when we strike!!! ;D Or, well...at least chat about T&T or some other rules-lite/old-school game.
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Jul 21, 2009 7:16:45 GMT -5
It's ironic... thieves can be readily handled by the existing 7E mechanics as either rogues or citizens, even warriors, with a thievery talent. They don't NEED special powers to make it work.
Clerics are not just wizards. The Wizard type restricts weapons; clerics in the S&S fiction often are handy with a blade, and not just a knife. They wield magic. Slow, powerful magic. Magic tied to the seasons and the stars.
Likewise, clerics in S&S fiction tend to be charming, and often, lucky. Wisdom? often, no... not even smarts in some cases. (Like the priests in a couple of Howard's Conan novels... not smart enough to go to ground...)
The D&D cleric is not the priest of S&S fiction; he's something else... something close, but not right.
|
|
|
Post by feldrik on Jul 21, 2009 8:56:22 GMT -5
I view the D&D cleric (and Paladin) as knightly orders akin to the Hospitalers and Templars, which is I think is the intent. The idea of the frock wearing, soft spoken clergyman out on campaign as a player character is, indeed, out of place. The term cleric needs to be replaced by something else if it is going to fit T&T. Then defining a talent or specialty that any character can have will fill many needs. The only pulp S&S Paladin I can bring to mind is Solomon Kane.
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Jul 21, 2009 9:08:18 GMT -5
Yes. Thieves can be done that way. Easy. No problem. But, what I mean is that D&D makes the distinction (despite most folks not understanding it) that Thieves are specialists. They aren't just back-alley rat crooks. They're freakin' James Caan. They're Steve McQueen in The Thomas Crown Affair.
The fact that it's a seperate mechanic for a seperate class is part of that distinction. Use it as a Talent in T&T and it's not seperated. Anyone else with a high enough attribute(s) can emulate or better it. So, you're back to the Thief not being someone with a jaw-dropping "How-does-he-do-that?!?" ability, but just a guy who can steal and do some sneaky stuff.
D&D doesn't need special powers to make it work. The distinction that the class itself is a specialist is what matters.
Though any one of us could make a Professional (which is a far better design than 7.x's Specialist) Thief or a Specialist Thief and actually have a thief type that made it worth it, T&T doesn't need it at all. In fact, I'd rather just make use of skills or Talents despite all my jaw-flappin'. Especially since Types aren't Classes, but really only distinctions of who can work magic and to what extent and who can't, not much more.
I've never seen D&D-type clerics in S&S fiction. I've seen shamans and fanatical cult leaders, but not Clerics. But anyhow, that's why I suggested that a T&T-esque priest should be it's own thing that still matches up to the fantasy rpg expectation. A few unique abilites and a use of weapons no better and no worse than a rogue.
You're right, the priest of S&S fiction (most of the time a bad guy and thus an NPC) is not the D&D cleric, which is why it's so weird to me that it was a class from the get-go at all, as it's certainly not mirrored in pulp S&S tales.
Hm. We probably should have started a seperate thread about this stuff. ;D I'd be interested in building/reading about a T&T-appropriate priest.
|
|
|
Post by djacknh on Jul 21, 2009 10:14:54 GMT -5
What about a class for Shaman or Medicine Man, or Witch Doctor? The Native Americans who were spiritual leaders were Shamans. Why not have classes for those using spirituality but who didn't go through a Wizard school?
As a side note I like to call Wizards Mages until reaching 10th level, then they are a Wizard. Female magic users under 10th level are Witches, then become a Sorceress at 10th level.
|
|
|
Post by feldrik on Jul 21, 2009 10:30:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Jul 21, 2009 13:18:34 GMT -5
What about a class for Shaman or Medicine Man, or Witch Doctor? The Native Americans who were spiritual leaders were Shamans. Why not have classes for those using spirituality but who didn't go through a Wizard school? Any proper treatment of priests should handle them seamlessly. Wizards shouldn't be using spirituality except as a cover... As for level based titles... not in my game.
|
|
|
Post by feldrik on Jul 21, 2009 13:58:20 GMT -5
Mostly agree, unless they are actually religous, that would depend on the game world. Is religion important to the world? I can see where it is possible to have a religous order training people to use magic in pretty much the same way as a secular wizards guild. As far as magic use goes there is no difference between a 'Wizard' and a 'Priest'. There in could lie some interesting conflicts and interactions as one institution tries to keep the upper hand over the other. Rogues are not tolerated by the Guild but the Church tries to harness them as a force for good (or their own purposes depending on how you want things to play out).
|
|
Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Jul 21, 2009 20:54:12 GMT -5
Shamen and black priests in my game use the standard rules for magic but call their spells by different names and claim they come from different sources...
|
|
|
Post by djacknh on Jul 21, 2009 21:11:21 GMT -5
The Trollbridge is really hopping these days! Good to see.
|
|
|
Post by djacknh on Jul 24, 2009 17:06:40 GMT -5
T&T Role Playing, It's in the game...
|
|