Why would you pay for three books when you could have everything in a single publication?
5th edition is practically Rules Cyclopedia, minus the THAC0, but even then THAC0 is just a bit of maths: why can't WOTC just do the decent thing and re-print what is probably the single greatest D&D publication in existence?
5th edition is merely Cyclopedia in the guise of AD&D: it was AD&D that insisted you buy three books in order to play the game. Cyclopedia merely required dice, pen and paper.
We have been robbed, and it is precisely this reason that the highwaymen of WOTC have yet to release Rules Cyclopedia as a reprint: they know that if they did no one would bother buying three books in order to play 5th edition, since they could have the original game as it was.
It may be argued that THAC0 is too mathematically difficult for the average spastic who couldn't afford a decent education, but that is neither here nor there: why should we be deprived of a great publication because of the plebs who simply don't know how to count?
>>43861360
Just get off work Virt?
>>43861439
Look I'm not trying to be some sort of old-fashioned reactionary, and I'm even flexible: it's just a very perfect version of dungeons and dragons, and it's in one book.
>>43861512
>Look I'm not trying to be bait...
Your grammar is atrocious and you lack the proper knowledge of both comma and colon usage.
>>43861629
>Your grammar is atrocious and you lack the proper knowledge of both comma and colon usage.
That's just what they said about Mein Kampf.
Okay, I'll bite.
What three books do you need? The DM's handbook is mostly food-for-thought and tools to make a DM's life easier, and the Monster Manual can easily be supplemented with a handful of generic statblocks.
The only thing you need to play the game is the PHB, and you're full of shit.
There's no reason to reprint it since everyone who wants it either has a copy or can get it pretty easily since the book only goes for about $50 these days.
My local B&N's lacking DMGs, oddly enough. And I'm in a semi-rural area where most of the gaming stores are in a seedy town.
I agree. Having everything in one book was a great deal. My Shadowrun book core rulebook is all in one, and it works fantastically. I have the core rules, tables full of monster stats and equipment, and even a good amount of advice for GMing. As Wizards has a large market presence they can do whatever the fuck they want without too much trouble.
>>43861360
Buddy, I got a soft spot for the Rules Cyclopedia too. It's awesome. But it was never meant as an introductory product. It didn't play around, you were expected to know what the hell you were doing with an RPG before you even picked it up. That just doesn't fly in today's industry.
>>43861360
>why can't WOTC just do the decent thing and re-print what is probably the single greatest D&D publication in existence?
Is this actually a serious question?
I mean, you already know the answer to this, it's fairly basic logic.
>>43861360
Rules Cyclopedia was awesome, but coming into it cold was a bit rough. Of coarse any RPG's from that era, coming in cold was rough.
It was also basically 4 books.
DM's Guide
Monster Manual
Player Handbook
Known World Campaign setting.
>>43861745
>>43861896
What does the Rules Cyclopedia have going for it?
OP was too busy shitting on WotC to articulate why he thought it was so amazing.
>>43861896
>DM's Guide
>Monster Manual
>Player Handbook
>Known World Campaign setting.
You trolling?
>The Rules Cyclopedia contained all the major rules, compiled and revised from the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, as well as the Expert Rules, Companion Rules, and Master Rules boxed sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Rules_Cyclopedia
>>43861360
>pay for three books
>pay for books
>pay
>>43861962
>OP was too busy shitting on WotC to articulate why he thought it was so amazing.
OP here:
My message was clear; ONE BOOK TO RULE THEM ALL!
>>43861986
What do you have against paper?
>>43861360
>dwarf, elf, and halfling as classes
Lol okay grandpa
>>43861712
>and you're full of shit.
And you can't count.
>>43861962
It's basically a compilation and revision of all the rules from the Mentzer box sets, which is great if you want to play those games but can't get a hold of them all.
>>43861962
It was a well laid out book, with the classic D&D rules in it.
It had everything someone needed to start and play a game for just 25 bucks USD in 1991.
You had the character creation rules, classes, spells, items, movement and combat of the normal players handbook.
You had the information found in a normal DMG. Magic items, encounter tables, experience, NPG information, campaign creation guides and general DM Procedures of running the game.
You had the monster list of a monster manual.
You also had several rule expansions available to work with.
Mass Combat rules, Siege rules, Strongholds and Dominions (rules for each class too). Rules and guides for Immortals. Character options such as Weapon Mastery and skills.
Then you also had the Known world information. About ~25 pages with over world hex maps and basic realm information. This listed a variety of game hooks and some very basic information on the places listed.
You also had AD&D to D&D conversion information to work with, if you felt like you really needed it.
While monsters and spells would be simpler, and less choices you had all the information needed to run the game.
In comparison, to buy everything needed to play AD&D at the time was about 65 USD.
The game itself was quicker playing then AD&D too.
>>43862392
>>43862351
Sounds pretty neat actually. Might have to pick up a copy at some point.
>>43862469
Speaking of which, you guys got any of those useful Mega Folders laying around filled with PDFs from the old stuff?
>>43861659
Reminds me of a dumb, simple joke I recently heard.
The guy who proofread Hitler's speeches was a literal grammar Nazi.
>>43861360
>playing the devil's game.
You all mother fuckers need to play Dragon's Raid.
>>43861360
>5th edition is practically Rules Cyclopedia, minus the THAC0
Can you explain?
>>43862682
yep. check the /osrg/ thread
>>43861360
>Why would you pay for three books
Good point, I'll never play dungeons and dragons again.
>>43861360
RC is halfway to AD&D. If you're gonna play Basic, you might as well play B/X.
Also, 5e really isn't "practically Rules Cyclopedia minus the THAC0". 5e has significantly more customization to it, and the detail that RC adds over B/X tends to be reminiscent of AD&D, which is to say ad hoc and clumsy. That's not to say that I think you're crazy for preferring RC to 5e(and I'm admittedly being a little harsh on RC here because I'm adopting your blustering tone), but you're talking out of your ass here.
So, here's a random-ass question and this is as good a place as any. Can anyone point a nigga at a download for the OD&D Expert Rules?
>>43867622
you know what would be actually a better place than any? fuckin google. shithead.
>>43867622
You mean Basic D&D, presumably. Check out the trove in the OP of the /osr/ thread.
>>43862045
What do you have against trees?
>>43867622
literally just saying that to your phone would be a better idea
Race-as-Class is the worst thing to happen in tabletop since ever, and anyone who advocates a system that uses it should kill themselves before their retardation spreads.
>>43861973
He's saying it's a 4-in-1.
>>43861360
While I do love Basic, there really isn't any reason to return to it.
Want the old-school vibe? Retclones exist that fix the clunky, broken bits. And they're free.
Want the old-school settings? Then you really want 2e, because that's where the old-school settings were at their best. Even Mystara had some decent 2e releases.
There's nothing to recommend Rules Cyclopedia, any more. Even if you like the rules, it's organized for shit. Sticky tab notes that turned up in Walmarts around 1994 were the best thing to happen to it.
Plus, if you're gonna do old-school D&D and DON'T get the 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Handbook for the most glorious of appendices, then seriously: what the fuck are you doing, besides everything wrong?
>>43867675
What's wrong with race-as-class? Do you truly fail to see the elegance of it or are you just mad for not being able to bolt pointy ears onto your magic user?
>>43867721
>What's wrong with race-as-class?
I want to play an elven thief.
>>43867721
My dwarves use magic.
>>43867769
>>43867731
The demi-human gods want clerics too.
>>43867721
What is elegant about it, exactly?
>>43861360
Why not just get a B/X or BECMI retroclone that cuts out 99% of the shit in the RC that nobody ever actually fucking uses?
>>43867800
Not that guy, but I always enjoyed the way that classes, in general, restrict players to playing a character.
There is an elegance in it. It's the difference between "you're in a tavern" and "the four of you have come together in the common house of Prince Blahblah's royal estate in Placeyplace, to meet the game warden Guystuff, in response to the advertisement he posted seeking aid in capturing a local Scarybad that has been driving red stags from the forest of Bushyland."
>>43867824
What? We're talking about the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes. How do those add depth to a character? They deprive it of depth.
>>43867838
>They deprive it of depth.
No, they place restrictions on it. They frame it. Same as "railroading" does. It doesn't deprive you of anything. Are you so uncreative that you can't work within a framework? Infinite possibility minus one possibility still leaves you with infinite possibility.
It's not a restriction--it's a framework. And it's a very simple, straightforward one. And that's elegant.
>>43861360
I'm guessing this is just a copypasta from some guy who is anally devastated that his copy of RC cost sixty billion dollars online when he could have just picked it up for $10 at a garage sale or pawn shop.
>why should we be deprived of a great publication
Like you can't get it for free now.
>>43867854
>that's elegant.
No, it's stupid. How do you explain, in-universe, that the elven gods never imbue any elves with their power (elven cleric)?
>>43867731
>>43867769
>race-as-class sucks because it doesn't separate race and class
Please try again.
>>43867800
It implies a setting.
Also, no one is stopping you from coming up with your own class in basic: just follow the format of the other classes (advantages, disadvantages, characteristics) and construct your own. Get it approved by your DM en boom: your magic user now has pointy ears, if that's your thing.
>>43867838
Character depth should come from the player, not from the game
>>43867875
>It implies a setting.
>having to create a whole fuckload of classes every time you want to switch setting is a good thing
If the game has no mechanical way to differentiate my elf from any other elf of the same level, why would I say that my elf is a master of the longsword, but flawed with magic?
>>43867859
The gods have personalities and choose not to. What's wrong with that explanation?
You're arguing against this one restriction, but why stop there? Any argument you make can just as-easily be transferred to an argument that any kind of classes put unnecessary, unwieldy, unrealistic, agency-limiting restrictions on players. You can make the same argument for quantified attributes, or skills. Why are elves available and goblins aren't? Are you telling me all goblins have to evil? What about alignments in general? And what's with all these "adventures" you keep giving us. Reading out a text-blurb? Like it's impossible for the world to develop when we're not looking. Who's to say your description of that room is still accurate, when dust and cobwebs could'a covered the whole damn thing?
>>43861360
>Why would you pay for three books when you could have everything in a single publication?
You're forgetting that BECMI was FIVE books and when the Rules Cyclopedia came out it was the biggest fucking jewing the then dying TSR had ever carried out after Buck Fucking Rodgers.
>>43867915
You started strong, but then went full-retard.
I also find it very hard to believe that none the gods of the demi-human races would look at human clerics and go 'hey, that's not a bad idea'.>mfw most of those arguments about character creation can be solved by playing GURPS Dungeon Fantasy
It's kind of telling that you have to try so very hard to justify race-as-class, while having them independent draws nowhere near as much criticism.
>>43867915
Not that guy, but you just went on a retarded tangent and might want to re-frame your argument.
>>43867925
BECMI was five BOX SETS. That's even more expensive than five books.
>>43867859
Basic doesn't try to cover everything. I mean, there are no rules for playing trolls either. It plays to a particular niche, which is dungeoncrawling in a human-centric world. If you want to play outside that niche, you either need to houserule, or play a different game. And if you're looking for something different, that's fine. But I'd rather Basic be a well-designed screwdriver than some Swiss Army monstrosity that tries to combine a screwdriver with a wrench and a hammer and ends up being passable at best at three different tasks instead of good at one. Race-as-class makes demihumans distinct and iconic. You're not just Class X with pointy ears and night vision.
>>43867932
>I concede that you're right, so let me devolve to insults and red herrings. And give me a second while I relocate these goal-posts a couple yards down the field.
I think we're done, here.
>>43867940
>there are no rules for playing trolls either.
GAZ10 - The Orcs of Thar has trolls, among other things.
>Race-as-class makes demihumans distinct and iconic.
And all the same, mechanically.
This is what a reasonable argument looks like:
>>43867940
This is what an idiot looks like:
>>43867941
>>43867941
>I have no rebuttal, so I'll declare myself the winner and not explain why less choice is better
You're right, we are done.
>>43867854
Because its one thing to say "No professional soldier seeks in-depth magical training" and quite another to say "no single member of the ENTIRE ELVEN RACE has ever become a professional soldier"
>>43867969
All rules, all stories, all themes and motifs, all narrative structures and dispute-resolution mechanics, all settings and even the language you're playing in are putting restrictions on the players.
That's how all games function.
>But I object to one particular restriction!
>Don't point out that it's arbitrary, or I'll be insulting towards you on the internet!
You sure showed me.
>>43861360
to be fair, the thief and halfling-as-class are CATASTROPHICALLY FUCKED in everything before 2e AD&D (where the latter does not exist), not just a little, but a lot.
>>43867875
>>race-as-class sucks because it doesn't separate race and class
no, race-as-class sucks because it limits my ability to play the role I want to play in this game.
>>43867875
It implies a fairly dull setting, where all non-humans have a single culture worldwide which teaches a single non-differentiated skillset,
I will certainly give you that, but its an argument on my behalf, not yours.
>>43867875
>Character depth should come from the player, not from the game
Exactly! So why does the game place an explicit prohibition of character depth? It can have either specific training or a specific culture, never both?
>>43867932
>I also find it very hard to believe that none the gods of the demi-human races would look at human clerics and go 'hey, that's not a bad idea'.
Who says that the gods of the demi-human races follow the same rules as human gods do? Maybe they don't want to, maybe they can't. Maybe elves have magical power because their gods infuse every one of them with the power of a minor cleric.
>>43868009
So do classes. Or skill groups. So do success-rates of skill checks measured solely in five-percent increments. So does any kind of setting at all. So does virtually everything about the game rules, which is sorta what makes them "rules" in the first place.
>>43868029
>with the power of a minor cleric.
Then why do they use the wizard spell list?
>>43868036
So now wizard spells can't be granted through divine power? Stop putting arbitrary limits on the character that I want to play.
>>43868027
There's no explicit prohibition of character depth, not sure where that came from. You may be thinking implicit.
>>43868036
Because the elf gods don't grant the cleric spell list, they grant the wizard one. Because they are not the human gods and don't play by the same rules.
>>43867991
>"no single member of the ENTIRE ELVEN RACE has ever become a professional soldier"
I think you're reading this wrong. It's not like everybody (or even most people) have a PC class. Elves can be all manner of things if the DM wants them to. But going by the rules without modification, PC elves belong to a particular class.
>>43868045
>So now wizard spells can't be granted through divine power?
No, that's why they're wizard spells, not divine ones.
>>43868053
Okay, so why has no thieving elf ever become a PC?
>>43867996
This is entirely a non-argument. Your defense of an arbitrary restriction is exactly as meaningless or as meaningful as my attack on it. You invalidate your own argument merely by making it. If it doesn't matter, shut up and go away. Since you care about it, defend it with real arguments. We won. Races aren't classes. You have to win hard to get your way. You'll have to convince us. We don't have to convince you. We already won.
>>43868054
Oh right. Because the rules say so, and that's just how it is so don't question it.
Wait a second...
>>43868066
But you see, sir, why don't you put those spells INTO THE DIVINE SPELL LIST?
>>43868063
Thieves are of little relevance to anything before 2e AD&D, best ignored. Then you have demihuman fighters (all PCs), demihuman wizards (just elves), and demihuman clerics (which explicitly exist and are NPC only).
>>43868030
See:
>>43868064
I approve of skills. I do not approve of race-as-class. Your goal is to persuade me that the restriction you like is as valid as the restriction I like.
>>43868064
>Your defense of an arbitrary restriction is exactly as meaningless or as meaningful as my attack on it.
You are correct: that is exactly the point.
You have expressed a preference that carries no more weight nor authority than any other expression of preference.
>Since you care about it, defend it with real arguments.
There are no "real" arguments to be made. The taste of pickles is not inherently better or worse than the taste of chocolate.
>>43868054
Wait, are you really saying that gods and magic both of which prides itself on being mysterious and unknowable, should conform to easily understandable rules?
>>43868078
Alright, so why hasn't a dwarven cleric decided to step out of the dwarf monastery and break skulls in the name of Moradin?
>>43868048
Cannot. Be. Cleric.
Explicitly, are never priests. Never Paladins, that is to say, no Elf has ever fought with the presence of his god. No dwarf has ever performed a magical spell.
What I'm getting from this thread is that race-as-class only works when your entire setting is built around it.
>>43868081
>>43868064
Sorry, are you under the impression that we're in some kind of battle, which can only be won by the person who convinces yourself that their beliefs are inherently superior?
Because we're not. The claim that race-as-class is somehow, inherently less-desirable of a restriction than any other restriction is what we were discussing.
That your defense against that is that you have a personal preference proves my point--not yours.
>>43868093
Maybe because Moradin expects them to conform to his will, and stay in the fucking monastery? And if they decide to go adventuring they lose their clerical powers?
>>43868098
>elf paladin
That one's actually mentioned in the bit of the 2e DMG that talks about lifting racial class restrictions, and the effect it can have on game balance.
>>43868086
But we already won, and your stupid idea is abandoned. So your arguments are important. If you're right, you should convince us. If you convinced us, you'd get your stupid idea back. Instead, you're arguing non-argument. Why not just leave? I mean, don't get me wrong, if you get off on arguing, I totally understand, and I'll be right here with you till the end.
>>43868106
What about Clangeddin, dwarven god of battle? Would he want his clerics to waste their lives hiding away from battle?
>>43868105
Sorry, are you under the impression that all human interaction is not a battle, which can only be won by the person who convinces the most other people that their beliefs are inherently superior?
Because it is.
>>43868127
Yes, because he clearly understands giving both that administrative duties and actual battle duties to the same people is retarded.
Also he thinks that you should do battle with your own power, not his. Because that is how the world is SUPPOSED to work, no matter what the silly gods of humans say.
>>43868063
>Okay, so why has no thieving elf ever become a PC?
That's a weird way to look at things. It's not like there are characters out there who, by their own deeds, force players adopt them. Classes are tools in a toolbox, and for simplicity and manageability, there are a limited number of them for players to choose between. These are meta-choices and do not necessarily reflect in any way upon the wider in-game world.
Making the world human-centric, Basic assumes that roughly half of characters will be human and half will be demihuman, and divides its classes accordingly. This makes the scope of the game limited, which can be a drawback if you're looking for something outside that scope. But it also means that it's targeted and simple, so that if you're operating inside that scope, there's less bullshit to have to deal with. Personally, I like the idea of some sort of simple differentiation in each of the demihuman races (even if it's just a wood elf / high elf thing with a few cosmetic changes between them), but Basic is pretty easy to rejigger if you want to, primarily because of how simple it is.
>>43868115
>If you're right, you should convince us.
Wait, what? Did you actually just resort to "if I don't agree with you, then it's not true?"
>I totally understand, and I'll be right here with you till the end.
The end of what? I already demonstrated that your claim that race-as-class is wholly arbitrary and reliant on nothing but your personal preference. You don't need to change your preference for that to be the case.
>>43868147
*understands that giving both
>>43868098
>Cannot. Be. Cleric.
Hmmmmm, I take it you haven't read the Rules Cyclopedia? Because it specifically states that there exist demihuman clerics.
>Explicitly, are never priests.
If you haven't read the Rules Cyclopedia its easy to find a link.
>his god
Yeah, you don't seem to get BECMI. Gods aren't a thing in BECMI. There are immortals, who are probably more like Maiar or Valar, but clerics certainly don't need to serve them and getting worshiped is considered poor form in Gold Box.
>No dwarf has ever performed a magical spell
Well, ring of spell storing. But I don't see why making all races in a setting represented by all classes is good, as it leads to grey sameyness.
>>43868147
How about Dugmaren Brightmantle, god of (among other things) discovery? Would he not want his followers to go hunting for new and interesting things? Or Dumathoin, god of exploration? Or Muamman Duathal, god of wanderers?
>>43868158
Not the ones who become PCs, no.
Problem solved.
>>43868154
>Gods aren't a thing in BECMI.
Gods aren't a thing in Mystara. What if you want to use RC for something set elsewhere? Do you have to throw out all the classes and start again?
>>43868164
>Problem solved.
That's not solved in any way shape or form. Why not the ones who become PCs? Is there any reason beyond 'I said so'?
>>43868093
Maybe one has. He's just not available as a PC unless you tweak the rules.
And before you rail against this restriction, why can't you have a cleric that uses two-handed swords, or magic-user who turns undead. Well, that's easy enough to do by add more rules. But by the time you add the additional rules for every such instance, you have a significantly heavier game. You're simple, easily-tweaked system that's a breeze to run is now more difficult and involved. And depending on what you're going for, that may be worth it, but it's not always a net plus.
>>43868170
>Gods aren't a thing in Mystara.
Or in the RC.
> What if you want to use RC for something set elsewhere?
Then you use the threadbare rules for demihuman clerics presented (ie they're NPCs). Plentiful plethoras of Jesii are not a reasonable requirement for an RPG.
>>43868150
Its a game rule, man. If you want it to be used in games, you're going to have to convince people its a good rule.
Its an idea. You literally do have to get people to agree with it for it to work.
>>43868173
>Is there any reason beyond 'I said so'?
Yes: because the rules say so. Same reason fighters don't have thief skills and thieves can't pray for spells. There isn't any difference between these restrictions, except that you dislike some of them. Well ok, but so what? Therefore it's inherently inferior? I don't like the taste of bananas. Should bananas no-longer exist?
>>43868158
Their followers, but not heir clerics. In dwarven society the clerics' duty is to be at the monastery, aiding those who come to them. That's what they get their powers for. If they do anything else, they lose their power.
>>43868179
>magic-user who turns undead
Mage/Cleric dual/multi-class
>a cleric that uses two-handed swords
War domain cleric.
>>43868183
>Then you use the threadbare rules for demihuman clerics presented (ie they're NPCs).
Or break out the GAZ.
>>43868195
So, again, RAC fails unless the setting is specifically designed for it.
>>43868150
Nobody ever denied that it was whoily arbitrary, except perhaps, you, when you tried to convince everybody here that it didn't suck, We know its arbitrary. Its obviously arbitrary. Its make-believe games played with imagination. We're saying its arbitrarily BAD. And what I mean is, I'll keep arguing with you until you understnad that. And also past then, to when you start trying to convince me otherwise. OR, all along as you continue to repeat yourself over and over. Because I enjoy this.
>>43868191
I don't have to convince YOU of anything at all, anon. I'm perfectly happy to let other readers of this thread read both our comments, and be influenced by them, or not, as they see fit.
I'm discussing something I'm interested in 'cuz guess what? I'm interested in it. That race-as-class is inherently worse than other character restrictions has been debunked. That's the discussion that we were having. You now want to have another discussion about which you, personally, prefer. I'm not that interested in that discussion. I am enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself, though.
>>43868202
>Mage/Cleric dual/multi-class
Which doesn't exist in rules-light Basic, but does exist in rules-medium AD&D... and is a bit of a mess. Honestly, multiclassing in general is a bit of a mess. But the point is that yes, you can always add more options by adding more complexity to a game, but you pay a price for that complexity.
>>43868154
I haven't read it, but according to >>43868078
they are not for players, which, again, only supports my claim. The depth explicitly exists, but players are prohibited from it.
>>43868217
>I don't like thing
>therefore it fails
The burden of proof is on you to explain how that is a failure.
>>43868221
>That race-as-class is inherently worse than other character restrictions has been debunked.
No it hasn't. RAC ONLY works when the setting is specifically designed to use RAC, while separating them means you can handle a large range of settings by tweaking what races have access to what classes, which is hugely simpler than having to make new classes.
>>43868217
But that's a problem with DnD trying to be a universal fantasy system when it clearly can't be, and not with RAC.
>>43868241
Hmmm, odd, you use the word depth but are talking about something irrelevant to depth. Care to explain?
>only supports your claim
Well you claimed they explicitly don't exist, so keep in mind you're confirmed to be wrong. Would you like to try over from the beginning?
>>43868247
You could say the same for any edition, not sure what the point is. Additionally, as the cleric is a pure D&Dism, you're never going to have to need to modify the system to account for a lack of elf clerics, as clerics are just a D&D thing to begin with. You may as well complain about wizards and spellbooks.
>>43868244
Can RAC handle Forgotten Realms? No, because FR is designed to use a system that allows for all races to have more than one class, so it doesn't force elven clerics to stay in their temples (for example).
That is how it fails.
>>43868154
>Well, ring of spell storing. But I don't see why making all races in a setting represented by all classes is good, as it leads to grey sameyness.
Now you've moved the goalposts. You're saying "you feel" it "leads to" sameyness. You can't deny it reduces depth. It obviously doesn't have to lead to sameyness, if you think 3.5 is a system of grey sameyness, you've probably never played it.
>>43868263
Sorry, but no. A given RPG not working for a given setting doesn't mean "it fails" unless it is advertised as being for that setting.
>>43868252
On the subject of player characters, I claimed it "prohibited character depth." I then followed that they cannot be clerics, or paladins, or mages. What part did you debunk?
>>43868271
You goddamn retard. I'm saying that RAC fails to work for any setting that isn't specifically designed with explanations in place for why all PC demihumans have the same basic abilities. THAT WAS ALWAYS WHAT I WAS SAYING.
>>43868221
>I don't have to convince YOU of anything at all, anon. I'm perfectly happy to let other readers of this thread read both our comments, and be influenced by them, or not, as they see fit.
I know that! That's why I've been trying to get you to stop repeating over and over the bullshit non-argument about arbitrariness and construct some real ideas! What makes it good? "No worse than anything else" is not an endorsement!
>>43868265
>Now you've moved the goalposts.
Of course not.
>You can't deny it reduces depth
It definitely does not reduce depth. You keep using a word you're not familiar with, I apologize for your confusion. There is very little customization of the various PCs possible in BECMI, and that could be considered a lack of depth, but not a lack of elf clerics.
You can't have vampire werewolves or mummy demons in nwod, for example, but there's probably more depth to character creation systems in nwod than in, say, AD&D. The lack of vampire werewolves in nwod, or elf clerics in BECMI, however, does not itself harm depth.
>if you think 3.5 is a system of grey sameyness
Yeah, the nearly universal assumption that every race can be every class does have the unfortunate result of casting a pall of grey sameyness over 3.x settings, as you can expect nearly every item of a certain GP limit to be available in every town, and expect every non-prestige class to be present in every city of every race, and in about the same proportion. The diversity of fantasy races is largely reduced to a +2/-2, or a "throw it in the garbage can" if it has LA.
It does have more depth with its character building system, though. Setting wise, though? Players almost always feel entitled to the impossibility of all items being available in all cities, and strictly speaking, that's what the game was "balanced" around.
>>43868289
>RAC isn't compatible with setting where the developers didn't put in the six seconds of work it needs to be compatible.
You are not wrong, but why are you trying to use the same system for every game? We are not in the GURPS general.
>>43868286
>What part did you debunk?
Oh, I debunked that it prohibited character depth, which is totally absurd. Character depth is unrelated to whether you can be Jesus.
Now if all elves had to have xyz personality then you could say character depth is prohibited.
In general, try not to use absolute statements frivolously, especially when you're not familiar with the meaning of phrases like "character depth."
>>43868221
My use of the personal pronoun seems to have set you on the wrong course. I'm just telling you that you have to convince PEOPLE, generally. I'm one of those people. You weren't trying to convince anyone of anything, except, I guess, you're trying to convince everybody who already hates RAC that our opinions are just, like, opinions, man? And we knew that, so, I guess, mission accomplished, but you're gonna need arguments to accomplish your stated goal of actually defending anything, whereas we have come up with a million reasons why RAC is a massive shit, you've yet to present one I can recall outside of "elegance" for why it isn't. Your best argument is "In certain systems which are specifically designed for it, it is no worse than other other system."
>>43868337
>six seconds of work
>six seconds to completely rewrite the setting for this particularly restrictive method of character differentiation
It's not 'the same system for every game', it's 'I'd like to be able to use these rules for my homebrew setting, but I have to include reasons why elven clerics cannot go adventuring'.
>>43867721
Well if you use it you clearly don't give a shit about immersion.
>>43868339
Sorry, I am humbled. Please, define character depth for me? I wish to know. Because i thought it was the personality and backstory of my character. And I felt it was limited by how I can't, by the rules, decide that my elf used a priest. But you obviously have some other definition of character depth that doesn't have to do with the characters history, life, or abilities. Please tell.
>>43868358
And I don't have to deal with people weeping bitter tears when I explain that in my setting you don't get to be elf Jesus. On the other hand, if I want to make demihumans more generic "plus to this, minus to that" I can do so with a trivial amount of effort.
No matter what angle you approach this from its going to be the same level of "good" and "bad."
>>43868369
Or, wait, did I maybe not understand what "limitation" was, and you define it as something other than "having a smaller number of options to choose from," I hadn't thought of that.
>>43868380
>elf Jesus
You seem obsessed with your players attempting to be Jesus.
I don't want to be Elf Jesus, I want to be Elf Friar Tuck.
>>43868369
>Please, define character depth for me?
Okay, here.
>Because i thought it was the personality and backstory of my character
There you go, easy peasy. Character depth is not "prohibited" by a lack of elf demons, elf clerics, or elf stone golem PCs.
>And I felt it was limited by how I can't, by the rules, decide that my elf used a priest.
Ah, I see you're confused. Of course your elf could have been a former priest, there's zero rules against it and nothing banning it. Glad there are no issues. He could also be a current priest, zero rules against it. Shall we continue, or?
>>43868380
Not that you don't get to be elf jesus, but that every single elf which has ever become an adventurer had exactly the same skill potential.
>>43868397
>zero rules against it.
Apart from the one where you can't get clerical spells.
>>43868392
>You seem obsessed with your players attempting to be Jesus.
Well, that's what the cleric class is.
>I don't want to be Elf Jesus
Cool! Then BECMI will offer no problems for you.
>I want to be Elf Friar Tuck
100% permissible by the rules and there are no problems whatsoever. You can have just as many forms of Jesus powers as Friar Tuck himself had.
Also, if you weren't a shitposter beating around the bush, you could simply pick up the Gazetteer which has rules for elf clerics, but of course, elfs with Jesus powers absolutely have to be in the core book or else the game is irredeemable shit.
>>43868411
>Well, that's what the cleric class is.
No it isn't. According to 2e, Elf Archbishop Turin is a perfectly acceptable cleric.
>>43868410
>Apart from the one where you can't get clerical spells.
What does that have to do with anything?
>>43868411
>the Gazetteer which has rules for elf clerics
So your solution for race-as-class restricting character concepts is to partially remove race-as-class?
>>43868403
And every PC in every edition other than 1.5e and 2.5e has the same "skill" (I assume you mean level?) potential.
>>43868397
You may be thinking of "forbidden" for prohibited, but prohibit merely means limit, restrict, slow. Something which is prohibited can still happen. Prohibited access means access only for some, not no access at all.
>Ah, I see you're confused. Of course your elf could have been a former priest, there's zero rules against it and nothing banning it. Glad there are no issues. He could also be a current priest, zero rules against it. Shall we continue, or?
This is just silly. You obviously know what I mean, what good do you do by feigning ignorance? Hoping to persuade the idiot demographic?
>>43868421
Because it means I cannot play an elf empowered by his deity to go and smite evil wherever it may threaten the Forest Kingdoms?
>>43868418
That's fine for 2e, I suppose.
>>43868411
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>you could simply pick up the Gazetteer which has rules for elf clerics
>My idea is so stupid I'm literally telling you to stop using it right here and now.
>>43868425
Having your feelings hurt by thing being in splatbook is retarded, anon. Specifically, its on par with shitters whose feelings were hurt by gnomes and half orcs being in PHB2 in 4e.
>>43868431
>(I assume you mean level?
You would be assuming wrongly. Skill potential means that every adventuring elf will always get the same abilities, unless you break out the NWP system, and even then you still have the same core abilities.
>>43868452
A splatbook that is removing the very thing you're arguing for, which is having one class for every race.
>>43868433
>You obviously know what I mean
Yes, that you Don't Like Thing. You then said that a lack of x character combo *prohibits depth* when you meant something wildly different.
>slow
Okay. Well, everything mechanical is slowed in RPGs with comparison to some potential concept of fast, so yes, literally everything is forbidden in RPGs, as words don't mean things anymore, I suppose.
>>43868431
No, I mean skill. I mean they'll have the same set of abilities at the same level. What I mean is, they'll be mages. They'll all be mages. No elf ever decided, you know what, I'm gonna be something other than a mage, and then, also, I'll leave home. If I want to play as somebody who had those two thoughts in his life, that is illegal play.
>>43868437
Okay, -that's- a reasonable concern. I would just point out that there aren't anti-evil powers by and large in BECMI, other than the magic user and cleric spells of Detect Evil and Prot/Evil, which are subjectively determined.
>>43868442
How about the Mentzer Basic version: Somebody who draws their powers from their belief in a great and worthy cause. Do you mean to say that elves cannot draw strength from their beliefs?
>>43868473
Fine, I'll spell it out for you, then. I want an elf with divine magic. I truly do apologize for using the word priest to represent that fact in dungeons and dragons. If I'd known you were unable to understand, I'd have been clearer.
So how exactly does having every elf be effectively the same lead to less grey sameness than having elven thieves and human spellswords.
>>43868463
I wasn't arguing for having one class for every race, I was arguing that having one class for every nonhuman race is hardly enough to make an RPG fail, and generally not going to be a problem unless you're trying to emulate another edition.
>>43868478
Yeah, but aren't Law and Chaos closer to LG and CE anyway? That's what I get from OD&D and Mentzer Basic.
>>43868487
No, just that those elves are universally afflicted with SAD and never leave the forest.
>>43867884
> If the game has no mechanical way to differentiate my elf from any other elf of the same level...
It does, though: through, for instance, your ability scores.
>>43868009
> race-as-class sucks because it limits my ability to play the role I want to play in this game
and this "role" you define to be a race/class: you are going in circles.
>>43868018
Whether archetypes for demihumans are dull is a matter of taste. I personally have come to appreciate the simplicity.
>>43868503
>RPG fail
I'm not saying it fails as an RPG, I'm saying that it fails to handle the nuances of any setting that wasn't set up to explain the race-as-class thing.
>>43868503
Whoa, whoa, you were arguing that it was just as good as the alternative, not that it was "hardly enough to make an RPG fail."
>>43868476
Well, you can interpret NPCs however you like. I don't find universal Jesii (or Herakles-es, or Archbishop Turpins, or whatever sort of divine powered types you like) for all races to be my cup of tea, and definitely find clerics in general to be one of the most suffocating and restrictive parts of D&D, but if you like them more power to you, and the option is there.
>>43868487
>Do you mean to say that elves cannot draw strength from their beliefs?
They don't get empowered by an immortal or by Law or Chaos -and then go on profit mongering PC business (unless the DM decides the GAZ is useful, in which case go ahead).
>>43868508
>and this "role" you define to be a race/class: you are going in circles.
How is that...are you a teenager? Are you an unemployed teenager? How are you unable to understand that what a person does every day is most of who they are?
>>43868528
>clerics in general to be one of the most suffocating and restrictive parts of D&D
How?
>>43868540
>They don't get empowered by an immortal or by Law or Chaos -and then go on profit mongering PC business
Why not? Because it's part of the setting, which is one of the things I was saying about RAC not working properly unless the setting is specifically jigged to explain it.
>>43868495
When you go into the elven city, then go into the orc city, gee whiz, the same classes are all represented and in equal proportion (before race-agnostic randomness is applied). A trained eye may notice the orcs are a teensy bit stronger and the elfs are a teensy bit more graceful, but regardless of lifespan, natural aptitudes, etc. everywhere you go, there will be the same classes.
Exceptions are:
1. Probably less orc paladins, one could infer.
2. Monks and barbarians are only present where it'd be logical
3. Druids and rangers are (race-agnostically) a low population thing usually.
>>43868528
Whoa, wait, the Jesus thing was an ad hominem? I don't play cleric, ever, bro. Its just the thing elves can't be. I don't actually want to play an elf cleric, I play all human, all the time. Its still just plain old-fashioned racism to even be able to grasp the concept that a single race could only support a single class. That just doesn't make any sense. It requires you to think of the elves as storybook tales, instead of living parts of your world.
>>43868559
>the same classes are all represented and in equal proportion
Yeeessss....? That's what happens when you allow free transit of ideas between multiple races over a period of thousands of years, you end up with all ideas present in all races.
>>43868541
Come on, no need to go ad hominem, be nice.
>>43868358
You seem to be mistaken. You homebrew your setting AFTER you decide what system you use. If you want to do it the other way you are stuck with generic systems (or homebrew ones). Neither of which is DnD.
>>43868505
Chaotic can mean evil and Lawful can mean good, but someone attempting to stab you is absolutely likely to have evil intent (and certainly evil from your POV), even if you are a bad person. Ergo, Detect Evil and Protection from Evil trigger.
Stuff like starving animals and traps lack evil intent (as the spell sees it anyway).
>>43868514
Similarly, the over prevalence of, and dependence on, clerics in most of D&D greatly fucks up the majority of attempts to create a setting not just inspired by the books. Both solutions are a pain.
>>43868583
>someone attempting to stab you is absolutely likely to have evil intent
I am stabbing that cultist for the good of all people who don't want to be eaten by Cthulhu! Maybe 'Protection from/Detect Hostility' would be better names?
>>43868508
>and this "role" you define to be a race/class: you are going in circles.
What do you define a role as? The Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook defines them as them as tactical units of a combat party, and divides them broadly into Striker, Leader, Defender, Controller. Classes are then grouped into these roles.
Merriam-Webster defines a role as the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation.
What do you think of as the "role" of player characters in a tactical combat RPG?
>>43868543
Closes out a -huge- amount of storylines. "hurr durr why didn't you get your blindness cured alreadY" etcetera.
>>43868582
>You homebrew your setting AFTER you decide what system you use.
That is exactly the wrong way to go about it. You make the setting, then decide on the system you want to use.
>>43868579
I technically neither accused him of being one, nor implied that an unemployed teenager would be unqualified to argue. In fact, an unemployed teenager is probably the best person to discuss D&D issues, except an unemployed 30-something, I guess. It was a genuine inquiry into how on earth someone could not understand how class and race might be related to role, which I led with my best theory.
>>43868562
Newsflash: RPGs (or at least DnD) are more closely related to storybook tales than to any remotely realistic world.
>>43868559
So? In every 'city' you go into within reason there will be traders, smiths, guards, scribes and all the other components of a civilisation. Why would it be any different for most PC classes? Why do humans have a monopoly on really good fighters and expert thieves?
Its far, far worse when the setting implies every dwarf or elf who decided to go on adventures has the same skills and areas of expertise.
>>43868562
>Its still just plain old-fashioned racism
Okay, you went full tumblr. Dial it down a notch.
>t requires you to think of the elves as storybook tales, instead of living parts of your world.
Absolutely not. It just doesn't require you to think of Jesii for every occasion as an obligatory part of the setting, and in general its far easier to think of fantasy settings without clerics than fantasy settings with them -- hell, just having a main protagonist that can undo nearly any death that happens in a storyline really does alter a setting.
>>43868610
So do wizards. 'Oh no, a flood!' 'Fear not! Rock to Mud, Mud to Rock, and there's a diversion around the village.'
>>43868575
Okay. That sort of hyper-generic world building isn't my cup of tea.
>>43868604
Well, he's the one who cast Protection from Evil, so your opinion doesn't matter.
>>43868627
Maybe your RPGs? Tolkein first developed the "high" fantasy model, wherein a semi-realistic world in constructed whole, and stories are acted out inside it. You can do it however you want, but the fashionable way is to have societies that work like real societies and so forth. (probably because its more interesting)
>>43868652
Far less so, but you are right. The cleric is a hundred times worse in that regard or moreso, but there is a slim chance that a wizard will have prepared a rock to mud and mud to rock spell when a flood happened.
>>43868653
>hyper-generic
The exact opposite you potato. It's as close to the world you want to make as it can be, because it's not restricted my mechanics. Once you're done, then you shop around to see what system handles everything you need it too.
Therefore, it is exactly as generic as you are.
>>43868559
You know the DMG actually has pages of demographics to ensure that is not the case, interestingly enough. Elf society is 50% wizards, dwarf society is 50% fighters and 30% clerics, or whatever. Its like, six seconds of setting work to make sure they feel different.
>>43868639
>So? In every 'city' you go into within reason there will be traders, smiths, guards, scribes and all the other components of a civilisation
Okay, but as has been established, with a very very few exceptions classes aren't social classes.
>Why do humans have a monopoly on really good fighters and expert thieves?
Demihumans can certainly be weapon masters.
>>43868703
>You know the DMG actually has pages of demographics to ensure that is not the case, interestingly enough.
It does not, sadly. At least, not the 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, or 5e DMG.
>>43868640
Right, but D&D has never been one of the settings without clerics. Clerics who can bring back the dead have always been a part of it. As you pointed out yourself, you can in fact play an elf jesus, so I'm not sure why you're still using it as your example.
>>43868687
You're restricted by certain classes and options existing. Its easier to come off as reasonable when denying homebrew than when denying players what the books say they can have.
>>43868714
Must be the campaign setting books, then. I know I've seen the charts.
>>43868680
Yes, and? You are playing out a story, so an RPG should have everything to facilitate that, but it doesn't have to model the whole world, just the story in it. An RPG isn't any better if there's complex mechanical differences between the various types of bugs in the setting. It's better if it can help you create your story better.
>>43868718
>Right, but D&D has never been one of the settings without clerics.
It was just added as a gimmicky pvp class, and I don't find its inclusion to be helpful.
>>43864049
It's not funny.
>>43868732
If you're making the setting in a complete vacuum, how are you restricted by the existence of options in one system? I don't mean 'compare your setting to AD&D and RC and choose which one fits better', I mean 'go through all the RPGs you can to see which one can handle your setting the best'.
>when denying players what the books say they can have.
Except DMs do this all the time. 'No wizards/elves/dwarves. They don't exist in my setting'.
>>43868734
>Must be the campaign setting books, then.
Naw, you're thinking of something else.
>>43868738
>It was just added as a gimmicky pvp class
It's been there since the beginning you spoon.
>>43868747
>how are you restricted by the existence of options in one system?
Players will, quite reasonably, expect certain options to be readily available.
>Except DMs do this all the time.
Never disputed this in that post.
>>43868755
I'll let someone else fill you in on the cleric's immortal conflict with Sir Fang, I need to crash.
>>43868766
>Players will, quite reasonably, expect certain options to be readily available.
But it's you who's deciding what system to use, and you're deciding based on what the system has available. Why would you choose RC for your homebrew over any other fantasy RPG system , is the question.
>>43868780
>But it's you who's deciding what system to use, and you're deciding based on what the system has available
Exactly.
>Why would you choose RC for your homebrew over any other fantasy RPG system , is the question.
Presumably, I would choose the edition which best matches my vision for it. In this case, favoring the domain systems, a minimum of tiresome optimization, and the distinctions between humans, dwarves, and elves being far stronger than +1/-1.
>>43868802
>the edition
No you wally, we're not just restricted to D&D here.
>>43868755
Actually, Cleric was introduced explicitly to counter a certain player's OP custom vampire class. That's why they've got a distinct Van Helsing vibe to them and a variety of "fuck the undead" powers.
>>43868815
Kinda am, as non D&D RPGs are matoor games for matoor audiences who have evolved past primitive, unworthy concepts of random encounters, random treasure and domain management.
>>43868857
This is about setting creation you veg.
>>43868880
Yes... and this topic started with >>43868780
>Why would you choose RC for your homebrew over any other fantasy RPG system
>>43868901
And those three things that you listed are not limited to D&D.
>>43868910
Strictly speaking? You're right. The Violence "RPG" for example does have randomly generated loot, Exalted has extremely generic but mildly entertaining bureaucracy/socialize/war systems in Masters of Jade etc.
In practical terms, though? Yeah, you're kinda limited to D&D, especially if you want something more than just very general and abstract systems for such things. Generally I favor BECMI and 1e as a result.
Since the vagaries of treasure and yeoman recruitment are clearly outdated things modern game developers almost never have interest in, there is nearly nothing to interest me RPGwise other than the above.
>>43868960
Try GURPS. Dungeon Fantasy, to be exact.
>>43868977
Okay. Care to give cliffnotes as to its domain management system and XP/char progression via cash system?
>>43868990
>XP/char progression via cash system
You don't get XP for cash, simply because you only get 3-odd CP per session. If you gave out XP for cash, you'd end up with gods within the week. You do, however, get CP for successfully completing quests and such, and what kind of success gets you no money?
>Domain Management
A combination of Social Engineering and Mass Combat will do you for diplomacy (including economic wheeler-dealing) and warfare, and City Stats can handle actually statting up cities. City management is in Pyramid 3/54.
That's a bit much to abbreviate in a few posts, mainly since I'd have to have a good solid read-through of all the bits.
Race-as-Profession is in Pyramid 3/50.
>>43869053
Hmmm, doesn't sound like anything to be optimistic about. I'll admit, I don't get why games are holier-than-thou about treasure oriented character progression, but still cling like drowning sailors to hit points. And why bother to make something as complicated as GURPS but still use a HP system? Its like spending two hours making a sauce for a plain cheese sandwich. If you're not going to put effort into the core, why put so much effort into the condiments?
I might check it out anyway just to examine for good ideas.
>>43869075
>treasure oriented character progression,
Character progression is exactly as treasure-oriented as you make it. The small number of points involved means you can't give a conversion rate, because unless it's ridiculously tiny, you end up with very powerful characters very quickly. Superheroes are 500-point characters, for reference.
So what you do is, you give players 1 point for surviving the session/adventure/whatever, and 1 point for roleplaying their characters well, and 1 point for getting a bunch of loot, and that's 3 points, and that's plenty for the session. That way 1/3 of total progression is from the treasure, and you can turn that up if you so desire. 3 CP/session might even be a bit low.
I've attached the Treasure Tables thing for you to have a look at if you like.
>>43869075
There is literally nothing wrong with hit points. They 'stick to them' because they work and there is no reason to do something different.
And the whole point of Dungeon Fantasy is having fun by killing monsters to take their treasure to buy better stuff.
>>43869117
I'll give it a look for pilfering reasons, although classless, levelless, magic character bean progression oriented RPGs are probably my least favorite sort. I can already feel the fun draining away.
>>43869124
Which is half of OSR, so you need City Management/Stats and Social Engineering to get the Domain Management part of it. Birthright's the only thing with really detailed DM rules in the D&D family anyway.
>>43869153
>classless
Ah, but DF1 has templates/Wildcard skills that are basically class replacements. See for yourself.
>magic character bean
As if XP are any different, you just need a lot more of them.
>>43869155
Dragon magazine has lots of great stuff along those lines for 1e.
>>43869170
>As if XP are any different, you just need a lot more of them.
Yeah, they're very different (other than WW's MCBs). The basic idea of a class and level is that you get your progression in a packet, and once you get enough to get to the next packet, you open it up and there's a variety of odds and ends, some will be useful to you, others will be less so. With magic character beans, pretty much anything you spend progression points on is stealing from somewhere else. Then of course they also make optimization far more important than normal, since you have to figure out what ratio of investment is worth it above others, etc.
>>43869124
If you're going to make your RPG super complex, the first place to start with is probably HP.
>>43869204
>stealing from somewhere else
I don't know what you're talking about here. Do you mean that you have to choose what you actually want?
>>43869204
>super complex,
But core GURPS is extremely simple.
>>43869204
RuneQuest is much cleaner than D&D, has more distinction between humans and other creatures, has better magic, better combat, and includes a "salary" with character progression. The only thing it doesn't have is hard coded magic items and random tables to roll loot and encounters from. It even allows training outside of the use of XP at all, just time and effort with a trainer.
>>43868491
If you want an elf cleric in RC/BECMI, why not just roll up a cleric, say he or she is an elf rather than a human, and go? Are those little bonuses to finding secret doors and stuff such a necessity to your character concept that calling your by-the-rules cleric an elf cleric won't work?
If it helps, try looking at the racial classes as bonuses the demihumans get rather than their only option. Sure, a dwarf can be a thief or a cleric just as well as a human, but he or she can also be a bad-ass exemplar of dwarvishness! Elves can be fighters and mages just like humans can, but only elves have discovered how to put them both together into one special package!
I mean, come on. This stuff isn't rocket science. One of the first things the 12 year old me did upon getting the RC was to make a goblin character by using the dwarf class and saying he was a goblin. If a not-so-bright 12 year old can figure that out, why's it so tough for you?
>>43869439
Why does my elf lose his ability to see in the dark when he becomes a cleric?
>rolling stats
>races as classes
>defending races as classes
>THAC0
>"hurr if you think THAC0 is counterintuitive u a spaz"
OP is a faggot.And this is coming from someone who likes the cut of Basic's jib
>>43869452
Your god wills it so.
>>43869536
That's stupid. I'm going back to AD&D.
>GURPS autists shilling their aspergers simulator with dice
You know what's better for a dungeon crawler, is faster and easier to learn?
>>43869550
Nice try Virt.
>pulp game for chain-death OSR games
Nah
>>43869452
Again, is that such a crucial part of your character concept that you MUST have it? I mean, wheedle your DM to get it, then, but I think you're overthinking things.
>>43869561
Check your shit, Virt hates Savage Worlds now.
And you have no idea how lethal the game can get if houseruled right. If nothing else, the fact damage dice can explode makes players a lot more cautious because, if they're unlucky, everything can kill them.
>>43869541
Nobody will miss you.
>>43869571
It doesn't make sense that my elf loses features of his race when he becomes a cleric. It doesn't make sense that my elf turns into a pointy-eared human when he joins the priesthood.
>>43869583
It doesn't make sense that certain individuals are capable of throwing fireball either, and yet, here we are. Go whine somewhere else.
>>43869583
He doesn't lose any features of his race. He doesn't have a race. There are no races, mechanically. He has a class, and only one class, and gets the features of it.
>>43869604
Are you seriously suggesting that it's perfectly acceptable for an elf to lose things that all other elves have when he decides to take up clericing?
>>43869617
So what is the difference between an elf and a human?
>>43869617
Yeah but some things are pretty hard to justify as 'Class' rather than race. Like Infravision.
>>43869621
Are you suggesting it is not?
>>43869637
If he is, I agree with him. What kind of jackass god would do that to one of their most loyal servants?
>>43869628Nothing, because both are just imaginary beings in a game of pretend.
>>43869637
Let's try a different example so you can see how stupid this is.
I want to make a werewolf thief. Werewolf, as a class, is in PC4, but that has no thieving skills. What you are suggesting I do, is make a thief and then say he's a werewolf. A werewolf that is completely unable to turn into a wolfman, as the thief class has no features that would let me do so.
Do you see the problem?
>>43869621
>>43869637
>>43869655
No castration jokes, please.
>>43869655
>what are greek gods
All of them. Like literally all. The whole point of the cleric (and warlock) class should be that you voluntarily open yourself up to a cosmic dickhead to screw you over in exchange of untold power. You can"t get something for nothing, anon.
>>43869698
>You can"t get something for nothing, anon.
That's the whole point of the thief class, doofus.
>>43861360
>and it is precisely this reason that the highwaymen of WOTC have yet to release Rules Cyclopedia as a reprint
You are an enormous faggot.
http://www.dndclassics.com/product/17171/DD-Rules-Cyclopedia-Basic?term=rules&it=1
>>43869670
Not really, you make a Werewolf and play it like Oinkbane.MY THIEVING IS TOO SUBTLE FOR YOU!
>>43869715
No, the point of the thief class is that you get assraped for stealing. It's a fair trade.
>>43869736
>I want to play X
>here's something that's not at all the same
That you sir, that helps me so much when I wanted to play an actual proper thief.
>>43869746
Paladin pls go.
>>43869730
Does anyone have the pdf to share?
>>43869787
Then play an actual proper thief. You know, with the thief class.
>But I want to play my shitty concept
Well your concept is shit and I as a DM need to have fun too, so either make something interesting enough that I actually homebrew it or get another DM.
>>43869204
If GURPS is 'super complex' then so is DnD.
>>43869628
Mechanically? Not much, save that an elf can take the "Elf" class, while a human can't.
In-game, make elves as distinct as you like, whether as fair folk or Alfar or D&D-esque arcane- and nature-oriented supermen who live for hundreds of years. What makes elves interesting, and distinct from humans, doesn't have to be encoded inyo the game's mechanics. In fact, for my games I'd rather it not.
>>43869865
>Then play an actual proper thief. You know, with the thief class.
But that's not a werewolf, then.
>the rest
You sound like a real joy to play with. How about a Lizardman wizard, then? Does that meet your oh so high standards fagboat?
>>43870101
>But that's not a werewolf
Furries get out.
On a more serious note nothing about a werewolf goes well with a thief neither thematically nor mechanically so even if you had the option to create one I would still require you to explain why you wanted to do it and why should I play with you if you can't provide a satisfactory answer.
>Lizardman wizard
That at least doesn't scream incompatible bullshit right off the bat. But you would still need to convince me that it's a legitimately interesting character concept that can't be replicated with the wizard class.
>>43870315
>can't be replicated with the wizard class.
The wizard doesn't account for you having a tail.
