Do I understand this rule correctly?

[gideon_thorne]

moriarty777 wrote:
That's a good question. At first appearances, it looks like they tried to spread the classes evenly among the Attributes... Of course with thirteen classes, you have one Attribute with three classes. Those being the Paladin, Knight, and Bard with Charisma.

*chuckles* well, at one point there was a thought about putting 18 classes in the first book. 3 classes for each prime. But mainly there was a distinct lack of room. The CKG ought to make up for the lack.

Quote:
That's assuming his primary focus is melee. I've always seen the ranger as a bowman or spear thrower for some reason. Given that (I think) most people picture rangers as using bows (amongst other things), and that so many of his class abilities are ruled by DEX, I think that DEX would have been a better fit.

I'm writing up my own version of the ranger class thats more Wisdom based that changes the emphasis on the class a bit. I see them as more of a martial arm of the Druid orders in my campaign. So I adjust to fit.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[jman5000]

its funny, I had this same problem/argument over about a year and a half ago. I think there were a couple of poor choices made to facilitate 'balance' of classes to attributes.(now don't go off shuddering like that. the word needs to be used sometime!)

monk - con anyone, or paladin charisma??

if you think the move silently is bad - consider suprise... by the book, the cleric and druid cannot ever be beat with suprise as it's a wisdom check, non-class skill with which you add your level. I thought it silly that the cleric would spot the ambush before the ranger could - so I house ruled a class skill called Ambush which essentially negates this statistical oddity... it's the beauty of C&C IMO... we can easily make these tweeks to suit our own style of what we think is right or wrong... Some don't see a problem with surprise being a wis check and Clerics being the best at it. I did, and made my game address it.

Or how about the Ranger class who's strength prime but with no skills that actually use strength. To be a good ranger, you almost have to be a human to play this as 3 attributes are required to cover the class prime and the skills the class uses.

Some might consider that broken, other might consider that a cool way to role play a differently skilled ranger - shrug - to each their own and wont say it's good or bad...

Anyway... 18 classes would have been cool - I wonder what the other ones would have been. Warforged I bet
J/K

Cheers,

J.

[Metathiax]

My revamped version of C&C includes 25 classes and I must admit that I would have a hard time adding another significant class, especially considering that I allow double-classing. Pretty much any worthwhile character concept that I can think of is covered.

Quote:
Anyway... 18 classes would have been cool - I wonder what the other ones would have been.

My guess is that some of Colin Chapman's classes would have found their way in.
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

[gideon_thorne]

Metathiax wrote:
My guess is that some of Colin Chapman's classes would have found their way in.

This was well before Colin's splendid write ups.
There were some thoughts on Race Classes. Likely such will end up in the CKG, if not some other project.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[gideon_thorne]

Quote:
monk - con anyone, or paladin charisma??

The logic for monk being that the training of the class is to do with over all body fitness, and not just physical strength. And what is a paladin? Its a class that inspires to a certain ideal. Ie, charismatic.

Quote:
Some don't see a problem with surprise being a wis check and Clerics being the best at it. I did, and made my game address it.

A ranger with a wisdom prime solves this.

Quote:
Or how about the Ranger class who's strength prime but with no skills that actually use strength. To be a good ranger, you almost have to be a human to play this as 3 attributes are required to cover the class prime and the skills the class uses.

The logic behind this had to do with the function of the class. Yes, its designed to combat, but the class was given an array of specific back up abilties to aid the function of the class. I don't neccessarilly agree with the logic either. But for what its worth, that was the idea.

Im not trying to be contrary or argumentative here. I am just explaining the reasoning.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Dristram]

Thanks Gideon for explaining things! I always like to know what the logic or reasoning was behind the decisions so I can better make decisions on house rules.

FWIW, I'm thinking of going to a classless system using the xp costs for abilities and letting the players create their class and call it what they want. The existing classes will be there as archetypes. And I will be creating race classes for my NPCs.

[gideon_thorne]

Dristram wrote:
FWIW, I'm thinking of going to a classless system using the xp costs for abilities and letting the players create their class and call it what they want. The existing classes will be there as archetypes. And I will be creating race classes for my NPCs.

This is more or less what I do. 8)
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Omote]

gideon_thorne wrote:
There were some thoughts on Race Classes. Likely such will end up in the CKG, if not some other project.

God I hope so; my single favorite aspect of Basic D&D.

............................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[gideon_thorne]

Omote wrote:
God I hope so; my single favorite aspect of Basic D&D.

............................................Omote

FPQ

Put it this way. I have written up or am in the process of writing up variations on the elf, dwarf, gnome, and halfling race and sub races. Plus a few odds and ends for my own campaign. Where they end up is entirely dependent on what the Troll Lords decide to do with em.

I have a funny idea of doing a kind of illustrated npc/ short story book with my own variants detailed in the back as well. So race class variations will be available at some point. Its just up in the air as what sort of variations there will be and where they go?
For the record, I like race classes myself. I still have my Elf that I wrote up in 1978
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[vivsavage]

Regarding racial classes... what about racial restrictions on classes? Thus, dwarves can only be fighters & clerics, etc.

[PeelSeel2]

I have solved the problems of primes, classes, and class abilities with the rule that all PC races get three primes. In addition, one prime and be broken into two 'Half Primes' tn 15. Humans have an advantage in XP being 15% per award, half elves 10%. Works good for my campaign.
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

[gideon_thorne]

Not too many folks seem to like that. I dont know if its going to be included in the CKG or not? I'm vastly indiffernt to the idea myself, I tend to like less restrictions, not more.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[vivsavage]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Not too many folks seem to like that. I dont know if its going to be included in the CKG or not? I'm vastly indiffernt to the idea myself, I tend to like less restrictions, not more.

I was just thinking that it's less restrictive than racial classes and yet still keeps the whole "racial archetype" thing that racial classes have.