It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Cavalary: Can't see evil druids though.
There are plenty of "destroy all civilization" types that are clearly evil druids.

Also check out [D&D 3rd edition] Blighters, which are kind of anti-druids. They practice nature magic, but by CONSUMING nature. http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/blighter/index.html (See also Defilers vs Preservers in the D&D 2e setting, Dark Sun.)
avatar
mqstout: BTW, dtgreene, did you try Fell Seal? I don't remember if you said you liked tactical/sRPGs. It's relevant to this discussion because it has a fairly robust class system, some validating tropes, some deviating. (How about the aforementioned tabletop game, Gloomhaven? The whole game's character set is about bucking class norms.)
No, I haven't tried Fell Seal; I don't like TRPGs as much as I do RPGs with non-tactical combat. I might give it a try eventually, but I'll probably wait for some sort of sale. It's nice to see an indie RPG that's clearly inspired by Final Fantasy Tactics, but I would be more interested in one that took after the SaGa series. (Incidentally, in the one SaGa I've played that has classes, Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song (PS2), I noticed that Hunter is a higher tier class than Ranger, which is not the way I would have done it.)

Anyway, here are how I would treat the classes (assuming a conventional distribution of roles; in other words, with clerics as healers and magicians as offensive spellcasters):

Paladin: A sacred warrior who plays like a fighter/cleric hybrid. This character would be able to fight well, and would also be a spellcaster (and spells would be a more prominent feature of this class than for the AD&D Paladin; this would be a true hybrid, not a fighter with minor cleric spells). Also, Paladin would be a title that needs to be earned; a character can't start out as one. (If running D&D 3.5, I would likely require all Paladins to use the Prestige Paladin variant from Unearthed Arcana.)

Ranger: A figher/druid hybrid. These characters would be able to fight pretty well, and would have access to druid spells, which would include a mixture of attack and healing spells (and, of course, some support and utility spells). This class would be the "jack of all trades" class, similar to the Red Mage from Final Fantasy (but balanced like the one in FF1 or FF3DS, not the rather terrible ones in FF3FC or FF5 (ignoring the final learnable ability)). Rangers might have some rogue abilities, further cementing their "jack of all trades" role.

Druid: A uses of nature magic. The druid's spell list would be unique, but would contain both healing and offensive magic, many with nature-related themes (like a thunder storm or a life water spell). They would not have the offensive power of a mage, and would not be quite as good as healing as a cleric, but would be able to both, and their offensive spells would still be stronger than that of a cleric.

Ninja: A bit of a rogue/samurai hybrid, I think. They would have abilities that do things like increase evasion, let the party escape a fight, assassinate an enemy (chance of instant death), and others. Ninjas might also learn a bit of ninjutsu magic, which includes medium strength offensive spells meant to fill niches that physical attacks wouldn't fill (like hitting multiple enemies, or damaging enemies that physical enemies wouldn't work on). (Incidentally, a rogue/mage hybrid might be another approach to this class, provided that rogues are decent offensively in the ruleset.)

Bard: Support characters. Their primary ability is the use of bard songs, which would provide the party with some benefit, such as increased attack power or health regen. They would not be meant as attackers (though they might get some offensive ability, just so that they have something to do when done singing or if alone), but would be rather meant for support. They would not get thief abilities; this means no ability to steal, for example. (I mention this because I find the AD&D 2e Bard, which is basically a thief/mage hybrid, to be rather unsatisfying.) Bards would not learn and magic aside from their bard songs, which could be treated as magic.

Samurai: Like a fighter, but sacrifices some raw fighting ability for physical techniques. Basically, these would be used like spells (and have similar costs), but would behave like physical attacks, possibly having effects like doing extra damage, hitting multiple enemies, being critical-or-miss attacks, or perhaps allowing the character to defend and attack at the same time.

Goof-off: Perhaps this could be a character whose sole abilities are to resist status effects, to survive otherwise fatal attacks, and to run away from combat. This class's abilities could be useful if combined with those of another; a character with both cleric and goof-off abilities might be able to survive when the rest of the party gets killed, and could then revive the fallen companions.

avatar
mqstout: (See also Defilers vs Preservers in the D&D 2e setting, Dark Sun.)
One thought: It feels like it would be thematically appropriate for Preservers to get healing magic, but they don't. Perhaps Preservers should have been given the role that Cleric and (particularly in Dark Sun) Druids are given.

(There's also the whole philosophical notion as to why only the religious classes get healing magic in the first place. As an atheist, this dosen't quite sit right with me. I have been thinking of the idea of giving arcane casters healing magic, while divine casters would excel in destruction and mind-affecting spells.)
Post edited May 17, 2019 by dtgreene
avatar
mqstout: There are plenty of "destroy all civilization" types that are clearly evil druids.

Also check out [D&D 3rd edition] Blighters, which are kind of anti-druids. They practice nature magic, but by CONSUMING nature. http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/blighter/index.html (See also Defilers vs Preservers in the D&D 2e setting, Dark Sun.)
I did refer to druids, not alternate druid-like classes. Just like I referred to paladins and not blackguards.

And considering what "civilized" humans are doing to nature, may beg to differ regarding seeing even those as truly evil. I mean, it's evil from an anthropocentric perspective, but why's that the right one? Also, I tend to consider evil alignment as in good part motivated by selfishness, personal gain, and little concern for the effects on a grander scale, and wanting to destroy civilization for the benefit of nature wouldn't be for the druid's personal gain and very much for the grander scale, the natural world as a whole being greater than the "civilized" species of said world, and the druid in question I'm guessing not desiring some ruling position in the world they envision either. Admittedly, hard to place such a character on the standard alignment chart, but may be tempted to go with lawful neutral, as long as the law is that of nature, protecting the rest from the destruction caused by one (or, in fantasy worlds, up to a handful of) species.
avatar
mqstout: To me, Druids CAN shape shift. But they don't HAVE TO have that power to be a druid. To me, the focus on nature-related magic and versatility is more important core traits.
Same, didn't even think to mention shapeshifting in my description of druids. Frankly seems... out of place. For such a... natural class, that seems anything but. Nature magic and animal companions seems to fit much better.
Post edited May 17, 2019 by Cavalary
avatar
dtgreene: Bard: [...] They would not get thief abilities; this means no ability to steal, for example. [...] Bards would not learn and magic aside from their bard songs, which could be treated as magic.
Hmm, rather boring bard there. Thinking of how bards tend to earn their living (when not adventuring), some thieving abilities just seem to make sense. And also being loremasters in general. Not in the sense of learning magic other than their songs, but being on par with specialized magic classes in getting full use of magical items, identifying them and so on. Like this aspect of the Lords of Xulima bard, it's the class that most easily gets identify, appraise and merchant skills. (Don't find the fact that they tend to be default archers of the party that fitting on the other hand, but it is indeed their role to fit in regular combat considering how the party is set up.)

avatar
dtgreene: (There's also the whole philosophical notion as to why only the religious classes get healing magic in the first place. As an atheist, this dosen't quite sit right with me. I have been thinking of the idea of giving arcane casters healing magic, while divine casters would excel in destruction and mind-affecting spells.)
Druids aren't exactly religious, more spiritual I'd say. And rangers are neither really, but they get some druid magic including healing, right? So it's more like the fact that arcane energies aren't suited for direct healing (though there may be leeching), while divine and natural ones are. Wondering now about a way to have divine energies without specific divinities, that could be interesting.
avatar
mqstout: To me, Druids CAN shape shift. But they don't HAVE TO have that power to be a druid. To me, the focus on nature-related magic and versatility is more important core traits.
avatar
Cavalary: Same, didn't even think to mention shapeshifting in my description of druids. Frankly seems... out of place. For such a... natural class, that seems anything but. Nature magic and animal companions seems to fit much better.
The way I see it, shapeshifting is the sort of ability that takes over the character. A character who can shapeshift doesn't need other abilities; just shapeshift into some form and use the abilities of that form. For example, change into a dragon and get the ability to breathe fire, or transform into a creature with healing magic when the party needs healing. Assuming such abilities are obtained by transformation, a shapeshifter could be a fun class without needing access to other abilities. (Of course, the character would also gain the weaknesses of that chosen form; don't turn into a vampire if you are currently standing in bright sunlight.)

One nice thing about having this sort of shapeshifter is that it gives the players the opportunity to use abilities that are normally reserved for monsters, such as breath weapons and gaze attacks.

Of course, there's the issue of balancing this. (D&D 3.5 rather famously did this poorly, leading to the gamebreaking "pun-pun" build, which I consider to be the tabletop equivalent of Arbitrary Code Execution in video games.)

Interestingly enough, there are a few games where there is a trade-off between control and resource usage. In Centauri Alliance, there's one race that can change form, but to use the special powers of that form, you can't choose the action this round. (For example, one form has a 75% chance of throwing a powerful fireball at a group of enemies, the psionic power that does this is normally rather expensive to the point of being impractical.) Final Fantasy 6 has Gau and Mog, both of whom have abilities that make you lose control of the character, but which can allow them to create magical effects (including some spells in Gau's case) without using any MP.

avatar
dtgreene: (There's also the whole philosophical notion as to why only the religious classes get healing magic in the first place. As an atheist, this dosen't quite sit right with me. I have been thinking of the idea of giving arcane casters healing magic, while divine casters would excel in destruction and mind-affecting spells.)
avatar
Cavalary: Druids aren't exactly religious, more spiritual I'd say. And rangers are neither really, but they get some druid magic including healing, right? So it's more like the fact that arcane energies aren't suited for direct healing (though there may be leeching), while divine and natural ones are. Wondering now about a way to have divine energies without specific divinities, that could be interesting.
Actually, years ago I thought of a setting where things work the other way; there is some cosmic rule against divine healing, resulting in the only healing spells being arcane magic. (Conversely, divine casters would *start* with offensive magic on the level of D&D's Fireball, if I remember correctly.) This also meant that the gods couldn't heal themselves or each other, either. One gameplay mechanic I came up with is that your party members had the option to become deities, and doing so would give them a huge bonus in hit points (by like an order of magnitude), but healing magic would no longer work on them. (This sort of gameplay mechanic is sort of present in Paladin't Quest and its sequel; one of the recruitable party members is a robot, and while it has high HP, medicine and healing magic don't work on it. Too bad Paladin's Quest's robot wasn't useful. (In Lennus 2, I actually used the robot there for the final boss, and it survived the fight.))

Edit: It occurred to me that I should probably point out that Paladin's Quest doesn't contain any character that I would consider a Paladin; the main character is a mage (albeit one who can use swords). (Yes, the game's US title is a misnomer; the Japanese title "Lennus", which is the name of the world the game takes place in, is better.)
Post edited May 18, 2019 by dtgreene
avatar
dtgreene: (There's also the whole philosophical notion as to why only the religious classes get healing magic in the first place. As an atheist, this dosen't quite sit right with me. I have been thinking of the idea of giving arcane casters healing magic, while divine casters would excel in destruction and mind-affecting spells.)
Maybe it's because many atheists don't believe in stuff like magic/god given powers(so they'd either be "incompatible" with it due to their disbelief or they might not want to go against their beliefs and use/aknowledge such)? ;)

In a way, that's why many non-faithful characters/classes usually have alternate healing methods such as first aid kits/bandaging skills/etc(as it better fits their beliefs/use of science & technology to solve problems).

(Aside: If you think about it as I just wrote, having a non-faith based person/character wielding magic(of any sort) would make as much sense as a vegan wearing natural leather armor/wielding bone weapons.)
Post edited May 17, 2019 by GameRager
avatar
dtgreene: Actually, years ago I thought of a setting where things work the other way; there is some cosmic rule against divine healing, resulting in the only healing spells being arcane magic. (Conversely, divine casters would *start* with offensive magic on the level of D&D's Fireball, if I remember correctly.) This also meant that the gods couldn't heal themselves or each other, either. One gameplay mechanic I came up with is that your party members had the option to become deities, and doing so would give them a huge bonus in hit points (by like an order of magnitude), but healing magic would no longer work on them. (This sort of gameplay mechanic is sort of present in Paladin't Quest and its sequel; one of the recruitable party members is a robot, and while it has high HP, medicine and healing magic don't work on it. Too bad Paladin's Quest's robot wasn't useful. (In Lennus 2, I actually used the robot there for the final boss, and it survived the fight.))
Way I ended up seeing it is that arcane energies can't work directly on the living. When I was trying to sketch out the magic system for the book I tried for several years to write, I started with the basic fire, water, earth, air, added spirit, light and dark, then said that actually "fire" is the manipulation of temperature, so can be ice as much as fire if you take it that way, water that of liquids, earth that of solids, air that of gases, but all of these only work on the non-living, so can't manipulate the blood (or simply the water) inside someone with water magic for example, but you could gather the moisture from the air around them and shove it up their nose to try to drown them, or with air magic suffocate them by making the oxygen move away from them so they have nothing, or at least no oxygen, to breathe. Spirit magic works with the threads of the Web of Life, on a level different from the physical, and that can get more complicated but can have nearly any effect, indirectly, on anyone connected to it, so any living being. While light and dark are energies that work directly on living beings, creating or destroying, respectively, so light can heal but can also create a tumor for example, while dark can tear someone's arteries inside their body or remove an infection for example.
avatar
GameRager: (Aside: If you think about it as I just wrote, having a non-faith based person/character wielding magic(of any sort) would make as much sense as a vegan wearing natural leather armor/wielding bone weapons.)
Hardly. An atheist doesn't believe in deities, but that doesn't imply being unable to use their own innate powers or natural energies if they'd be discovered to exist. Leave arcane magic aside and think the Force in Star Wars. You don't have gods there, but you have that energy, and one's affinity to it can be detected through scientific means in their blood, right?
Post edited May 17, 2019 by Cavalary
avatar
Cavalary: Hardly. An atheist doesn't believe in deities, but that doesn't imply being unable to use their own innate powers or natural energies if they'd be discovered to exist. Leave arcane magic aside and think the Force in Star Wars. You don't have gods there, but you have that energy, and one's affinity to it can be detected through scientific means in their blood, right?
Yes, but some games(whether in good or bad ways is up to debate) have implemented mechanics where a non-believer simply couldn't wield magic/powers because of their disbelief(though one could guess that if they started to believe they'd be able to use such abilities). In such games, even if you wanted to use such powers you couldn't if your "faith" wasn't strong enough.

As for my example: Some atheists/non believers might not want to use such powers(even if they found out they were real) because they simply don't want to acknowledge such existing(as it conflicts with their prior beliefs). Some atheists I have met irl/online actually believe this way, btw, so I consider that a possibility as well.
avatar
dtgreene: (There's also the whole philosophical notion as to why only the religious classes get healing magic in the first place. As an atheist, this dosen't quite sit right with me. I have been thinking of the idea of giving arcane casters healing magic, while divine casters would excel in destruction and mind-affecting spells.)
avatar
GameRager: Maybe it's because many atheists don't believe in stuff like magic/god given powers(so they'd either be "incompatible" with it due to their disbelief or they might not want to go against their beliefs and use/aknowledge such)? ;)

In a way, that's why many non-faithful characters/classes usually have alternate healing methods such as first aid kits/bandaging skills/etc(as it better fits their beliefs/use of science & technology to solve problems).

(Aside: If you think about it as I just wrote, having a non-faith based person/character wielding magic(of any sort) would make as much sense as a vegan wearing natural leather armor/wielding bone weapons.)
In a fantasy setting, where magic does indeed exist (and can be proven to exist), an atheist would believe in magic. (We're assuming a setting where the existence of deities can't be proven.)

avatar
Cavalary: Hardly. An atheist doesn't believe in deities, but that doesn't imply being unable to use their own innate powers or natural energies if they'd be discovered to exist. Leave arcane magic aside and think the Force in Star Wars. You don't have gods there, but you have that energy, and one's affinity to it can be detected through scientific means in their blood, right?
avatar
GameRager: Yes, but some games(whether in good or bad ways is up to debate) have implemented mechanics where a non-believer simply couldn't wield magic/powers because of their disbelief(though one could guess that if they started to believe they'd be able to use such abilities). In such games, even if you wanted to use such powers you couldn't if your "faith" wasn't strong enough.

As for my example: Some atheists/non believers might not want to use such powers(even if they found out they were real) because they simply don't want to acknowledge such existing(as it conflicts with their prior beliefs). Some atheists I have met irl/online actually believe this way, btw, so I consider that a possibility as well.
This happens in Final Fantasy Tactics; a character's Faith stat, which can be changed permanently in either direction, affects the character's ability to cast spells, and *also* affects the power of spells cast on the character. A character with only 3 Faith (out of 100) is nearly immune to magic, and can therefore be very effective for fighting against enemy spellcasters (and probably doesn't even need a Chameleon Robe if you have a 97 Faith character casting CT5 Holy every turn).

(SaGa Frontier 2 has a similar mechanic, except with steel interfering with magic rather than a character trait, and not as dramatic an effect (even though, according to the plot, it *should* have a more significant effect than it actually does in gameplay).)

Also, I would argue that an atheist not wanting to use magic in a fantasy setting would be like an atheist not wanting to use technology in the real world; I don't see it happening. (Remember, the situation of "magic" in a fantasy world is different because it actually exists, just like everything else in the fantasy world exists.)
Post edited May 17, 2019 by dtgreene
avatar
Cavalary: [...] Can't see evil druids though.[...]
Druids of the flame - https://wow.gamepedia.com/Druids_of_the_Flame
I have a few opinions!

I like the idea of Bard magic as tapping into an innately human (or humanoid depending on the game) vitality - the part of people that feels emotion when they hear sad music and gets excited when they listen to a scary story by a fireside - for me the image of the medieval lute-player is not an inspiring bard. The bard should channel the beat of the drum or the force of the fanfare, and should be able to bring people out of the everyday and into a state of magic or dreamspace or warfare. I like the idea too that unity compounds their magic. Like how a single person doing a simple dance can be nice to look at, but 1000 people doing the same dance altogether can be totally awe-inspiring. Also creating harmony or disphony.
But how do you balance that in a game setting? Unless your entire game system is designed around everybody being a bard.

I also like in final fantasy 5 where the mages by their spells in shops, but you have to find the bard songs scattered about the world, often in unexpected and delightful places.
Maybe it would be good for a bard to think about the heritage of their magic - they picked up this song from such-and-such (and put their own spin on it) who was taught it by whoever (and added in an extra two verses) who found it when they travelled to...
So mechanically a bard might be required to achieve personal and social goals in order to gain new abilities?


In bravely default the samurai is the master of counter-attacks and I think that's a very neat way to combine the image of a samurai with a workable game mechanic - the samurai sits on a rock, elbow resting on the hilt of her sword while she sips from a wooden cup of wine. The bandits surround her, and stare in stupification at this idiot who doesn't realise they're about to be killed! One of the bandits loses her nerve: Hoisting her axe above her head she rushes forward screaming "learn to respect us, scum!!"
In a flash the sword is drawn and the bandit is eviscerated. In the same sweep the samurai flicks the blood from the blade and smoothly sheathes the sword. Then she reaches over to pick up her bowl of rice.


I agree with what's been said about druids not necessarily needing the ability to change shape. I liked in Warcraft III how those druids had a specific animal that they had affinity with, and they could take on the shape of that one animal. Since then I discovered that many druids can shape shift into any natural animal they desire and it seems wrong to me - it loses it's reverence somehow.
I also think the idea that druids being outside societies and hermits and that could do with a bit of a shake-about. The druids used to be key figures in a community, and I like the idea of a druids being leaders or pillars of society. Now I'm thinking of Asterix, and how the Druid was a key figure in town, but would mostly be found in the forest searching for herbs.


I've also been thinking about the MERCHANT job in rpgs. This is more for light-hearted computer games, and I'm thinking of bravely default and octopath traveller as my main inspirations.
The merchant in Octopath traveller is disappointing - you end up with more money than you need to spend and her abilities differ very little from the other characters. Also her whole thing of 'a merchant shouldn't be selfish, but should be there to provide the customer what they want' is tiresome and nonsensical: Someone who's greatest skills is making profit aught to be an unscrupulous dickbag - and I think playing a sleazy, conniving, exploitative penny-pincher would be much more entertaining.
The merchants in bravely default work a bit nicer - throwing as much money as you can fit in your hand at the enemy for a set amount of damage is an amusing and decent power, and having access to a shop mid-battle is cool, but I think underused.

paying the enemy to go away and leave you alone is always fun, and I think they should have let you do it on bosses if you were willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money (perhaps with bonus dialogue)

I've been thinking of ways to make merchants that are more satisfying in computer games, and I've come up with two 'builds'

1 - merchant has their own private account.
In this game all of the shops since the start of the game feature powerful weapons and equipment that it initially seems that you would never be able to afford. Once you get the merchant job you discover that, while the merchant increases the coin you get for selling, robbing enemies, etc. the extra isn't going into the party funds, but the merchant is quickly amassing a private fortune. The merchants abilities are simple and poor, but the weapons and equipment that they can buy with their private funds boost their statistics to compete with the rest of the party, and provide variety and customisation of abilities.

2 - merchant doesn't fight themselves.
In this build, the merchant doesn't gain 'experience points' or suchlike with the rest of the party, but instead their 'regular income' increases as they win battles. A higher regular income allows you to hire a better mercenary to fight on your behalf - while you sit at the back of the screen out of the way of battle. So you get a selection of combatents with simple skills, and once you outgrow them you swap them out for someone with a different skill set. My friend thinks that the merchant should be able to chip in with special abilities like throwing potions into battle and trying to buy the enemy's services, but I prefer the image of just sitting on the sidelines waiting for your hirelings to do it all for you.

Has anybody encountered merchants in a tabletop RPG dungeons and dragons etcetera game? Maybe I should have a think about that...
Some interesting ideas about that merchant class above, but I for one sure wouldn't want to have one in my party.

On the other hand, kept thinking about StarChan's post about vampires. Now those obviously can't be a class (Perfect World International notwithstanding), and shouldn't really be a race on their own either, but having them as a... sub-race, being affected by vampirism, sure does make things interesting. And recalling a MUD I played for maybe 30 min quite a long time ago, which had a vampire race (so on its own), which it briefly described as by far the weakest at low levels and by far the strongest at high levels. More detailed, said that low level vampires fall asleep automatically at sunrise wherever they are and can't wake till sunset, need to feed at least daily or they just wither away, are instantly destroyed by sunlight, be it natural or magical, and in exchange for all of that they just have slightly better than normal stats and minor additional abilities. But a top level vampire is a practically invulnerable killing machine, with outrageously high attributes and extraordinarily powerful abilities, no longer needing to feed at all but getting some boosts on top of the already overpowered stats if they do, and suffering just minor penalties during the day if protected from sunlight, while under direct sunlight the penalties increase but nevertheless remain modest and the damage taken is so negligible it basically just slightly lowers their natural regeneration rate. Talk about really implementing the early pain for later gain concept.
avatar
Cavalary: On the other hand, kept thinking about StarChan's post about vampires. Now those obviously can't be a class (Perfect World International notwithstanding)
Bravely Default, I believe, has a Vampire class; it's that game's version of the Blue Mage concept. (For those who haven't played Final Fantasy 5 or certain other games with FF in their title, a Blue Mage is a spellcaster who learns their spells by seeing enemies use them.)
Paladin - Smells pretty bad under that armor
Ranger - Smells like campfire
Druid - Smells musky
Ninja - No smell at all. Like a ghost.
Bard - Smells like booze and sex.
avatar
bler144: Paladin - Smells pretty bad under that armor
Ranger - Smells like campfire
Druid - Smells musky
Ninja - No smell at all. Like a ghost.
Bard - Smells like booze and sex.
This is so undeniably true. Did you learn this from experience?