Multi-classing?

[csperkins1970]

Lord Dynel wrote:
True enough. Which is why there's no wrong reason not to have one multiclassing system. I personally like the fact that there are multiple systems out there - fan-created and otherwise. But I also believe there should be a "TLG approved" system. Whether they intend to or not, I think the inclusion of a system in the CKG will become the "default system" for many folk.

I can't believe that AD&D, which had basically the same rules for multiclassing system for 20 years, had it "wrong" or "pointless" in having a uniform multiclassing system. And it has nothing to do with "system envy" - it's just something that made sense...a point of reference for creating and playing the multiclass system.

Well said Lord Dynel! I couldn't have put it better myself.

Lord Tryon wrote:
That then could be said of every rule in the PHB and of just even having character classes in the first place.

I mean you take the Airde setting and use Runequest or GURPS, the way the setting will play will be very different. I don't care what people say, the system and the setting work together and are not isolated from one another. The way spells work in C&C vs. Rolemaster spell system makes a great difference in how a dungeon may or may not be designed for a setting. To say they are not connected in some way is wrong.

This is not to say you cannot houserule any way you want, but C&C is descended from D&D and dual/multiclassing has been apart of that history for a long time. I agree with TLG in putting it in as an optional rule in the CKG but I also agree with Lord Dynel that it will most likely become the standard. I also agree that it should be. Though if I remember correctly so was the Bard class in AD&D.

Here are my few reasons as to why I think the way I do. If I move to another state and try to hook up with another game group I want C&C to play similiar to what I am used to playing. If the houserules take so long to explain that I feel that I am playing a differnt game then it really doesn't matter what title is on the cover be it C&C, D&D or Osric or whatever. The brand recognition is lost and it doesn't matter what system I use then. No one who rpgs ever has to buy a rule system for anyone can make one up. The idea of having a standard ruleset is to bring uniformity, establish community, and save time from having to create everything from scratch.

I don't play C&C because of it options but because the core mechaniacs fit what I need to play the type of rpg I want to play. I will even use some rules that I am not really impresed with in the book because it is easier to do so than to try and recreate the wheel. It allows me to buy an adventure and know roughly what I am getting. If every C&C module has a bunch of exceptions to the core rules in them, I and those like me will probably go elsewhere. The reason is not because we don't like the people of TLG but we don't have the time to rework everything we buy. Having a set standard allows those of us who cannot or do not want to spend hours in prep time the ability to spend our time playing the game not creating the game.

Same goes for you Lord Tryon.

I guess this is why you two are both lords.

[Lord Dynel]

serleran wrote:
So, out of curiosity, this applies to access to both spells, classes, and other things? So, if a player wants to be a barmaid, a standard NPC "class", then you will allow it, and not modify it at all -- for any reason, preventing them from ever advancing (since the rules do not support NPC level advancement -- they simply are whatever level they are), or even if not as retarded, and want to be something most likely reserved for "special characters" like anti-paladin or "god?" What about monstrous characters?

Somewhere, there is a line on what a PC is allowed to do, and what a NPC simply is -- they are not supposed to have the same "systems."

Well, I can give you two answers. The first answer is "yes" - if a character wants to be a barmaid or something else mundane, then sure...I'd go ahead and let them. Can't a barmaid be a thief or a illusionist, for example, either before or after their barmaid career? Isn't that the way most barmaids are - current or former classes of the PHB? If the DM wants to make a barmaid class for the PC to progress through, that's up to the DM and the PC - if it's fun and the game isn't hampered, I'd say go for it! Lastly, if for some strange reason, a PC just wants to be a barmaid with no class or level (effectively a "normal person with barmaid skills") then again, I say that if the it's fun for that person and the game isn't hampered then go for it!
The second answer is, "Of course not." I don't want to sound like an ass, but the barmaid, the anti-paladin, and the "god" examples are a bit of a strawman. Those examples are in an easy position to argue against to say, "No, of course not. I'm not going to allow you to be a god or a barmaid...that's just silly." (As far as the anti-paladin goes, I wouldn't normally allow it for alignment reason, if not for anything else - if it's an evil campaign, though, I would). I'm not talking about a barmaids or gods, or anti-paladin here. I'm talking about multiclass characters using classes from the PHB. NPCs. There should be no reason why the same rules can't apply to both sides of the fence, in dealing with NPCs, PCs, and multiclassing. If a NPC character has a couple funky combinations, why can't a PC have that, too? Other than, "Because, the NPCs and the PCs don't follow the same rules," or "Because I said so," arguments (please remember I am not trying to be an ass )? If one side follows the rules - or doesn't follow the rules - I just feel that the path should apply to both. Now please keep in mind I'm only referring to NPCs "people" - not monsters (or gods ) in the traditional sense.

DangerDwarf wrote:
No need for them to mimic the rules governing a PC.

Why not? Just because they're people controlled by the CK it means that they don't have to follow some sort of logic? A similar logic that the players should follow...who are technically the same except on is controlled by a person and one is controlled by the CK? I don't agree that they should be different.. Don't get me wrong, I feel the CK is beyond reproach but at the same time I feel that there should be some parity - I feel that PCs and NPCs should abide by the same rules and regualtions.

csperkins1970 wrote:
Well said Lord Dynel! I couldn't have put it better myself.

Thank you good sir! That's just the way I feel about it. It worked well for AD&D, and I feel that's not taking anything away from C&C. I know C&C is not AD&D, but I also know that it seemed to work fine for AD&D as an established system. *shrug* Beats me.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[DangerDwarf]

Lord Dynel wrote:
Why not? Just because they're people controlled by the CK it means that they don't have to follow some sort of logic? A similar logic that the players should follow...who are technically the same except on is controlled by a person and one is controlled by the CK? I don't agree that they should be different.

Logic? Yes.

Rules? No.

What class is that ancient red dragon?

How many XP does that dryad have?

What's Galian Gale's STR score?

How come my elf PC only gets two primes but the elf in M&T effectively has 3?

By default, even in the rules, they are different in numerous ways. If you choose to treat them differently, that is well within your right and there is nothing wrong with it.

But, it does not change the fact that PC's and NPC's are completely different in implementation and philosophy.

[csperkins1970]

Not to speak for Lord Dynel, but here are my answers to Danger Dwarf:

Lord Dynel wrote:
Now please keep in mind I'm only referring to NPCs "people" - not monsters (or gods Razz) in the traditional sense.

Dragons aren't people (humans and demihumans), so assigning a class isn't necessary. Actually, it isn't necessary for humans or demihumans to have classes either BUT, if they do, I'd like for them to follow the same rules as PCs.

Dryads aren't people, so assigning XP isn't necessary.

If Galian Gale is an NPC human or demihuman and has exceptional STR, it might be worthy of note.

PCs and NPCs with class levels get 3 primes (if human) or 2 primes (if demihuman). I can accept that NPCs with no class advancement work differently because they aren't going to advance in level and don't specialize in order to get class abilities.

[DangerDwarf]

You forgot the first part though CS.

Quote:
If one side follows the rules - or doesn't follow the rules - I just feel that the path should apply to both.

What you are talking about isn't applying it to both, it is only applying it to a select portion of the NPC's that suits your liking. Nothing wrong with it at all, but the whole, 'You have to treat them the same" argument doens't really apply then because you ar enot doing so yourself.

Only noting Galians STR if it is exceptional is markedly different too, following a different set of rules than the PC's. Does Ranger Bob only notate his exceptional attributes on his character sheet?

Now, let me say that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with getting as PC with an NPC as you want.
NOTHING.

But, it is not the default assumption of the system. You can easily do it to your hearts content in numerous different ways and run a supremely kick ass game.

But....

That does not make the system broken, poorly designed or lacking because it does not have the same assumption you do. Nor do all of us have the same desire to see that assumption creep into our games.

[csperkins1970]

I think don't think adding multiclassing rules would break the game any more than NOT adding multiclassing rules would.

If added, you could ignore them or houserule them.

If not, you have to houserule them.

I know plenty of people who are turned off by C&C because they feel that rules are somehow incomplete and that too much is left open to GM interpretation. As a result I've had to houserule the crap out of the game, just to make it palatable to the guys I game with.

While I enjoyed tinkering with the rules and think that my players really dig the results of my efforts, I think that C&C suffers from the perception that it isn't complete without LOTS of houserules.

[DangerDwarf]

csperkins1970 wrote:
I think that C&C suffers from the perception that it isn't complete without LOTS of houserules.

I agree there, but bottom line is that it is still only a perception (which is why I always advocate running C&C RaW and using C&C modules - kill the perception).

My C&C games are run 99% RaW and my group thinks it's great. So, different strokes and all.

[artikid]

csperkins1970 wrote:
I know plenty of people who are turned off by C&C because they feel that rules are somehow incomplete and that too much is left open to GM interpretation. As a result I've had to houserule the crap out of the game, just to make it palatable to the guys I game with.

While I enjoyed tinkering with the rules and think that my players really dig the results of my efforts, I think that C&C suffers from the perception that it isn't complete without LOTS of houserules.

I think you have a point CS.

I was put off at first by the way C&C handles magical wands and staves.

Houseruling is fun but in the long run it becomes a drag, especially if you end up keeping a long and elaborate houserules document. (Luckily C&C does not require such an extensive treatment)

I agree with you that official rules for MC are something that is sorely needed.

What I hope for is that the CKG is not going to give us multiple systems for that. For instance I hate having both dual-class AND multi-class.

[moriarty777]

:: Wading back into the thread... ::

Ok... a few great points brought up but the one thing that I think we can all agree on is that any good CK will make C&C their own. Whether that means incorporating a bunch of houserules or adding a few exceptions to those already in the PHB.

I've made a few little tweaks here and there but usually because I perceived a need to as opposed to just wanting to mess around with the system. That said, there is importance in a standard 'baseline' when it comes to the rules. If you move from one C&C group to another, the basics should remain familiar. If the Siege Engine is chucked and some sort of Palladium-like skill system is implemented, is it still C&C?

I also agree that the CKG, no matter, how 'optional' it will appear to be, may become viewed as part of that baseline simply because it will (one day) be readily available. I use my own multiclass variant but there is a good chance it may be tossed aside depending what I see in the CKG.

There is no easy answer to the MC question... but it won't be going away either.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[gideon_thorne]

moriarty777 wrote:
There is no easy answer to the MC question... but it won't be going away either.
M

Which is precisely why it was left out of the PHB. So CK's and groups can put their own interpretation on it.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[GameOgre]

I do NOT create NPC's the same way I would PC's. One of the things I think really went wrong with D&D was it started to create limits on what the DM could do.

As the DM if you want to make that NPC a 12th Paladin then fine.

If you want to give him 50 hit points and the casting ability of a 7th cleric while in holy robes thats fine to.

If you want to make him 5 HD but give him 3 times the hp and exp of a 5 HD while letting him cast a crapload of holy spells thats fine to.

What ever you want to do that works for you.

I HATED 3.5 mostly because of this whole attitude. Everything should not be forced into the same borring and detailed value system.

If you want to play that way..Awsome! More power to you! Just please keep it out of the core rules.

This also goes with MC. It's fine to give us 5 differant options to how to handle it. I like them as options not rules.
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

[Buttmonkey]

Rigon wrote:
BM, I have the errata fixed PDF. PM me an email and I'll send it to you.

R-

Whoops! Turns out I already have the .pdf saved on my hard drive. I love it when it turns out I'm smarter than I think I am!

[moriarty777]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Which is precisely why it was left out of the PHB. So CK's and groups can put their own interpretation on it.

But if it was included, what would there be to stop from CK's and groups putting their own interpretation on it anyway? I all the other rules in the PHB are encouraged to be treated in this manner so the inclusion of a multiclassing rule shouldn't change that.

Once again, logic finds itself in an endless loop.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[GameOgre]

Quote:
it was included, what would there be to stop from CK's and groups putting their own interpretation on it anyway? I all the other rules in the PHB are encouraged to be treated in this manner so the inclusion of a multiclassing rule shouldn't change that.

Could have been taken out of 4E.

The style of the game has a lot to do with that. In 4E they tell you to add or subtract whatever works for you and include 10,000 rules that under that you COULD ignore.

I like C&C style of going way beyond just saying ( whatever works for you ) and actually leaving it up to you. Three differant options along with a whatever works for you is fine. One way it could be done and then saying use it or not will leave some with the feeling of "This is the way its done in C&C".
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

[gideon_thorne]

moriarty777 wrote:
But if it was included, what would there be to stop from CK's and groups putting their own interpretation on it anyway? I all the other rules in the PHB are encouraged to be treated in this manner so the inclusion of a multiclassing rule shouldn't change that.

Once again, logic finds itself in an endless loop.
M

Because, as this thread has amply proved, people by and large seem to want to adhere to rules and are less inclined to be creative in inventing their own solutions if the work has already been done.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[DangerDwarf]

We are sheep.

[csperkins1970]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Because, as this thread has amply proved, people by and large seem to want to adhere to rules and are less inclined to be creative in inventing their own solutions if the work has already been done.

I don't think that's true. People who like to tinker with rules will tinker with rules, while those who don't won't.

I enjoy messing about with the rules, making tweaks that are based on the preferences of my players and me. At the same time, I'm not likely to buy products, such as adventures and campaign settings, if they handle missing rules (such as multiclassing) in varied ways... because I also like consistency in the application of rules.

In the end I think that things will stay as they are but think that the growth of the game will suffer as a result... which is why I've been giving my honest opinion in spite of the fact that it won't make me Mr. Popular on these boards.

[DangerDwarf]

csperkins1970 wrote:
in spite of the fact that it won't make me Mr. Popular on these boards.

Dude. You'll always be Mr. Popular to me. Your screen name is fun to say plus your avatar kicks ass. How can you not = win?

One thing I hope some folks realize about me, is that I simply enjoy participating in discussions with conflicting view points. My wife calls me argumentative but I disagree with her assessment.
I just hope no one ever thinks I'm getting agitated in various back and forths on the board, I just like to post (and right now I can't do any thing else anyways).

I too feel that there are some points with C&C that will cause game growth to suffer as a result, I just don't think that it stems from the rules. I think it stems from pushing it too close to D&D. I'm rather opinionated in my thought that C&C is a great game that is able to stand on its own and think C&C needs to find the correct distance to stay away from the game which inspired it all. To far...no good. To close...no good.

The rules as written are at that nice distance I think. It's us fans that keep dragging it back and forth.

[DangerDwarf]

Oh and I need to add...

LD is one of my favorite posters on this forum and me and him almost NEVER agree. But I know he's gonna bring some good conversation my way. Always does.

[paladin2019]

Buttmonkey wrote:
Whoops! Turns out I already have the .pdf saved on my hard drive. I love it when it turns out I'm smarter than I think I am!

Anyone hosting this errata?

[csperkins1970]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Dude. You'll always be Mr. Popular to me.

- you silver-tongued devil, you

[moriarty777]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Because, as this thread has amply proved, people by and large seem to want to adhere to rules and are less inclined to be creative in inventing their own solutions if the work has already been done.

Is there anything actually wrong with that? Why put out all those adventure modules when a CK could design their own? Is it only a case of people being inclined to be 'less creative'? Couldn't it be a question of time in some cases? Personally, I don't have a lot of free time to devote to the creation of material for my use in my C&C games. I certainly don't have the time to do much else other than C&C these days and I consider myself lucky to play once every 6 weeks or so.

I like using the pre-published stuff simply because it gives me more time to do what I want the most -- to play. This has to do with both adventures and mechanics. That is not to say I don't occasionally whip something together or implement and tryout a new houserule now and then. Having those rules from the start would have not been a bad thing and an inclusion of them in the CKG will result in pretty much the same thing in the end. I quickly got used to the idea of these rules not being present in the PHB and the argument made by Davis I think (in Crusader issue 4) regarding archetypes makes a certain amount of sense.

The CKG will no doubt appeal to some more than others as is the case with these rules but it's bound to be interesting!

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[gideon_thorne]

moriarty777 wrote:
Is there anything actually wrong with that?

Not especially, if that's your thing. But honestly, having all the work done for me bores me to tears and takes away half the fun of a game system, any game system, for me.
Sides its really not a lot of work to adapt rules for a group. I think most game masters do it backwards though, and try and pre plan and pre package everything. I let the players do the work and evolve rules and story plot out of their actions. All I have to do is create one initial scene and then arbitrate action and consequence from there.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[DangerDwarf]

moriarty777 wrote:
I like using the pre-published stuff simply because it gives me more time to do what I want the most -- to play.

I agree there. I used to never use modules, but now I use them almost exclusively. Not just for ease of use either, but an often overlooked reason as well.

Back in the day, I remember down at the FLGS we'd kick back and BS with various gamers we met in the store. Modules provided us with something.

A shared experience.

Different groups would talk about their adventures in Y59: Impenetrable Fortress of the Undead Ninja Moneys of the Apocalypse. Sharing there exploits and bonding a little bit because everyone there had their own tales to tell of their running.

Best thing about modules I think.

[paladin2019]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Best thing about modules I think.

Damn straight, bragging rights. Even Gary Jackson figured this out.

[Lord Dynel]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Because, as this thread has amply proved, people by and large seem to want to adhere to rules and are less inclined to be creative in inventing their own solutions if the work has already been done.

I don't agree with that one bit. Sorry Peter.
People have amply proved that they are creative on these boards. I've seen scores of monsters, classes, races, and house rules galore. It's when "optional" systems (multiclass characters) have been added into official products (modules and accessories) that some people question the methods used created and seek to find a reference point on which to base these things. I don't think it has anything to do with creativity.

We see goblins and saving throws and we know where to find those in the rules. We also see things like multiclass characters and wonder why those aren't there, too.

DangerDwarf wrote:
Oh and I need to add...

LD is one of my favorite posters on this forum and me and him almost NEVER agree. But I know he's gonna bring some good conversation my way. Always does.

Aw, gee...thanks DD! You made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside (and without the use of alcoholic beverage ).

Maybe this multiclass thing is a play style issue. I like creating NPC that follow the same general rules that the PC's follow. I think of them as "the PC's the PC's aren't." But I feel that if I want to give my wizard NPC a longsword to use, I feel I should have some explanation for my players as to why he has it, and I feel that I should create that same opportunity for the PCs. If I'm saying "Eh, what the hell, this wizard is going to have a longsword," then so be it. But if I want structured rules, I feel I should give the PCs the same opportunity. Maybe the sword example is not strong enough, so imagine a wizard with rogue skills if that fits the bill better.

Now, to answer DD's question a while back (the ones that csperkins addressed), I was actually only referring to NPC humans, demi-humans, and possibly even humanoids (that's kind of tricky - probably only for memorable or recurring humanoids)...basically the races that I felt would be an acceptable race for a PC are ones I would allow creation Magical creatures (dryads and other fey), dragons, and other beasties (giants, for example, or aboleths) I wouldn't feel any desire to stat these out with anything beyond the M&T. I never felt that, when I said "if one side follows the rules...(the rules) should apply to both," meaning everything in the M&T. Only human-like NPCs.

But DD is right, this is not the default assumption of the system. I just didn't want to give the impression, as DD mentioned and was warning against, that the system is broken or worse for not allowing for these. I feel the system could benefit from having a uniform multiclass system, and I feel PCs and NPCs could follow these same rules for creation. But those are only my opinions and I feel the system is fantastic the way that it is.

And that kind of bring me back to the front of my post. I like making various house rules for the system. I keep them light, simple, and functional. I think including them is not to please all those with a lack of imagination and drive to do it themselves. If that's the case, we dont need classes - because aren't we catering to the unimaginable with a ranger, knight, barbarian, or monk if they're all separate classes? I mean, can't we imagine and make up abilities that could add distinction to the fighter to fill these types? I know that's absurd, but it really is to illustrate a point: multiclass rules, like rules for skill checks, spell resistance, or turning undead don't cater to the unimaginative anymore than these rules subsystems do. Some people, I feel, want a uniform point-of-reference...like these other rules examples provide.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[gideon_thorne]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I don't agree with that one bit. Sorry Peter.
People have amply proved that they are creative on these boards. I've seen scores of monsters, classes, races, and house rules galore. It's when "optional" systems (multiclass characters) have been added into official products (modules and accessories) that some people question the methods used created and seek to find a reference point on which to base these things. I don't think it has anything to do with creativity.

We see goblins and saving throws and we know where to find those in the rules. We also see things like multiclass characters and wonder why those aren't there, too.

I see. So If I decided to add in some special abilities for my goblin creature, say he has the ability to shape change into a raging bear, I have to write up a whole rule for it?

Or maybe I can just stick an extra ability, class, unusual item, or whatever on there just cause I want it there and don't have to explain to anyone how or why?
Sure, folks can cobble together a magic item or class or two, but when it comes to inventing a suitable explanation of why an NPC gets something, and a character doesn't, the creative spark seems to have wandered off.
Seems a puzzle to me. I guess I just got used to working out this stuff on my own since, back in the halcyon days of my youth, my first game group and myself didn't have anyone to ask. Or not anyone who had any more idea than we did what the hell we were doing.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[DangerDwarf]

Yeah. I stat all my NPC's no different than a critter. They have whatever abilities are necessary for the story without regard as to if a PC could do the same or not. After all, just like real life; not everyone is created equal.

[Treebore]

If I wanted to do a goblin like Peter mentions I would just make him a full fledged Druid.

Yeah, I don't think more rules means less house rules for everyone. In 3E I had a lot of house rules because of what I didn't like about a lot of the rules, including feats, how skills were handled, etc...

In C&C I have a lot of house rules because, again, I don't like how certain rules are, all the way from how classes are written up, which spells are on which classes list, or not, how I want to handle grapple, Energy Drain, etc...

So for me its to take a rules set and turn it into something I like better. Then as I get closer and closer to what is my perfection I then start creating spells, monsters, and magic items. Of course nowadays, with so many editions of D&D, and so many similar variations, itrs more a matter of taking things I see in thsoe books and making it usable in C&C.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Lord Dynel]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I see. So If I decided to add in some special abilities for my goblin creature, say he has the ability to shape change into a raging bear, I have to write up a whole rule for it?

I'd say no. I'd just give hime levels of druid, as Treebore mentioned.

gideon thorne wrote:
Or maybe I can just stick an extra ability, class, unusual item, or whatever on there just cause I want it there and don't have to explain to anyone how or why?

Of course you could. There's no rules saying you can't.
I don't see it as killing ones imagination or anything like that. We come from different lines of thinking, that's all. If you want to say, "Hey, I'm going to give this goblin the shapechanging ability! That'd be cool!" and I say, "Hey, I'm going to make this goblin a druid! That'd be cool!" I don't think there's anything wrong with either one of those. Is either one "less imaginative?" I don't think so, because we are both still fulfilling our visioin we have for said goblin. It's just one of us are doing it within the structure of established rules for PCs and applying it to a NPC and the other is taking one aspect and just appplying it how they see fit.

gideon thorne wrote:
Sure, folks can cobble together a magic item or class or two, but when it comes to inventing a suitable explanation of why an NPC gets something, and a character doesn't, the creative spark seems to have wandered off.

Why...and I'm not trying to sound obtuse...is having a suitable explanation be "because the goblin's a druid," (following the previous example) not a suitable explanation? People make those magic items and classes and monsters because they imagine up a concept and codify it on paper. Does some imagination get lost somewhere because my idea for a witch is no longer in my head, since I've written it down?

gideon thorne wrote:
Seems a puzzle to me. I guess I just got used to working out this stuff on my own since, back in the halcyon days of my youth, my first game group and myself didn't have anyone to ask. Or not anyone who had any more idea than we did what the hell we were doing.

I was sort of in the same boat as you, sir. I bought the Mentzer Expert set off a classmate in 1986 and had nothing else to go by. I played with that for about two months before I found the Red Box. By that point, though, I had played without it and had made up some stuff to go along with my Expert set. I don't think picking up the Red Box made me any less imaginative.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.