Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EvilVegan 03-10-06, 09:38 PM	I just made a completely new and logical class! Check it out (or don't). It is a totally warranted brand new class concept! It isn't even remotely redundant. I based this off of celtic myth, skalds, and divinely inspired musicians! Bard Initial flavor: See PHB, under bard. Adventures:See PHB, under bard. Characteristics:See PHB, under bard. Alignment:Mostly all Bards are wanderers, guided by whim and intuition rather than by tradition or law. The spontaneous talent, magic, and lifestyle of the bard leads many to avoid a lawful lifestyle, but they're a diverse group so they may be of any alignment. Religion:See PHB, under bard. Background:See PHB, under bard. Races:See PHB, under bard. Other Classes:See PHB, under bard. Role:See PHB, under bard. Game rule information Bards have the following game statistics. Abilities:See PHB, under bard. Alignment:Any. Hit Die:See PHB, under bard. Class Skills See PHB, under bard. Class Features:See PHB, under bard. I made this myself, completely in a vacuum, with no outside sources. P.E.A.C.H!
Red Fire 03-10-06, 09:54 PM	All you did was say that they could be of any alignment. Other than that they are exactly the same as they are in the PHB!
supernerd8916 03-10-06, 10:13 PM	you are taking credit for changing the alignment? that is a house rule, at best. you wanna revolutionize the bard? do something, dont just change one thing and take credit for everything.
Tempest Stormwind 03-10-06, 10:31 PM	And you guys totally missed the point, along with the sarcastic tone. To me, this is saying "People here are willing to accept countless new classes (especially those with PEACH in the topic title) without batting an eye, even the uninspired ones, but get riled up over the idea of changing a printed alignment." Which I totally agree with, by the way. I also have a very, very ad hominem retort about the use of poor class stereotypes in sigs, but I'll leave that merely implicit.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-10-06, 10:33 PM	Most of you aren't getting that this is a snarky response to another thread when someone is arguing that the non-lawful requirement is essential to the bard class. Edit: And its not the thread Tempest thinks it is.
Tempest Stormwind 03-10-06, 10:46 PM	Most of you aren't getting that this is a snarky response to another thread when someone is arguing that the non-lawful requirement is essential to the bard class. Edit: And its not the thread Tempest thinks it is. In my defense, I honestly hadn't noticed that thread, but now that you mention it, I'll read it. Probably not going to respond, though. I was basing my response off of my earlier observations that people here seem more willing to write up a new class than just think about existing ones in a new light. I do not want to derail this thread into one like the last one we butted heads in, so I won't argue necessity, but you do have to admit this observation does tend to hold here.
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 03-10-06, 10:47 PM	Yay! LE dwarf bard ahoy! I never had anywhere near the level of originality this new and original class variant required, but now it opens up so many options that neither myself or my DM could ever think of before! And what in the name of Asmodeus's sexy disco shirt does PEACH mean anyway?
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-10-06, 11:30 PM	I was basing my response off of my earlier observations that people here seem more willing to write up a new class than just think about existing ones in a new light. That's an INCREDIBLE stretch just to promote your own agenda. I do not want to derail this thread into one like the last one we butted heads in, so I won't argue necessity, but you do have to admit this observation does tend to hold here. No, not really.
supernerd8916 03-10-06, 11:43 PM	i completely agree to changing the alignment, and if he had started adiscussion about it i would have been right up there with him, arguing for or against him, for the alignment change. but he said that he was improving the bard, which by the way is the most underpowered character ive seen, and i was hoping to see an improvement, not an empty claim. dont get me wrong, i appreciate a good joke, but this wasnt very good. that whole thread about why a bard can or cannot be lawful is ludacris.
BlaineTog 03-11-06, 01:29 AM	i completely agree to changing the alignment, and if he had started adiscussion about it i would have been right up there with him, arguing for or against him, for the alignment change. but he said that he was improving the bard, which by the way is the most underpowered character ive seen, and i was hoping to see an improvement, not an empty claim. dont get me wrong, i appreciate a good joke, but this wasnt very good. that whole thread about why a bard can or cannot be lawful is ludacris. Allowing more bard characters = improving the class. The bard is not underpowered. If yours is, either your DM has been screwing you out of many legitimate uses of your abilities, or you have no idea how to use said abilities.
Boondoggle 03-11-06, 05:41 PM	Tempest: If you don't like seeing new ideas for classes, don't read the board. Some people enjoy creating other classes to better define or expand archetypes, or just to use some cool idea they came up with. No one is making you play them, much less look at them. Really, you're whole argument boils down to the fact that you think the current mechanics are enough and people just need to roleplay more. One can easily take that argument further and claim that classes and even dice aren't nessessary at all, which is true: look at LARPing. D&D, however, is as much about combat (& skill) mechanics as it is RP. If you just want to RP, the system you use is irrelevant. If you want to play a lawful bard, talk to your DM. I think debating about it here is about as effective as arguing politics in an online forum. Bards aren't underpowered. They aren't effective for direct damage and require creative and subtle thinking, which is what confuses people, IMO. In combat, bards are most effective hampering the enemy and improving allies abilities. Because of this, the larger the party, the more effective they become.
leopardmessiah 03-11-06, 05:54 PM	That's an INCREDIBLE stretch just to promote your own agenda. The "completely warranted" in the example, sounds somewhat like what Tempest was talking about, enough to excuse his interpretation anyway. Calling it "incredible" is something of a...stretch :D
Poodle 03-11-06, 06:13 PM	wow every one is really taking this to heart and your all just jealous of EvilVegan originality
Tempest Stormwind 03-11-06, 08:52 PM	Tempest: If you don't like seeing new ideas for classes, don't read the board. Some people enjoy creating other classes to better define or expand archetypes, or just to use some cool idea they came up with. No one is making you play them, much less look at them. Really, you're whole argument boils down to the fact that you think the current mechanics are enough and people just need to roleplay more. One can easily take that argument further and claim that classes and even dice aren't nessessary at all, which is true: look at LARPing. D&D, however, is as much about combat (& skill) mechanics as it is RP. If you just want to RP, the system you use is irrelevant.My argument comes from people thinking you need new mechanics for ideas that can clearly be represented in existing ones, not that I'm against new classes. I've even helped make one myself, and I'm damn proud of how the Society Mind turned out (filling several niches in psionics that were missing, carrying new mechanics for psi-themed support, and able to fill archetypes missing from psionics (healer, naturalist, socialite) AND from the game in general (distant benefactor or mastermind, "the voice behind the headset")). I just feel (like others) that if you're going to create a new class, it better have rockin' new mechanics behind it to justify it mechanically, and RP-wise it should fill a niche that isn't already filled by an existing class or multiclass. Additionally, several of the new "twists" on mechanics can be better represented as feat chains -- I can't begin to tell you the number of combat-classes I've seen here that essentially amount to a fighter or multiclass fighter with specialty feat chains (and occasionally a different favored save or more skill points), often with a terribly-thought-out "restriction" added on, for instance. In short, do not put words in my mouth, particularly ones that have no connection to what I have said in the past or am saying now. Nowhere here did I say I was opposed to new classes -- I'm just opposed to the illogical desire for a new class for EVERYTHING and the apparent inability to see what the system already does with a bit of creativity ("Hmm... I want to be a fighter who uses a greatsword. I need a Greatsword Warrior class!" or "Well, despite the skills and feats already in use for this, I want a warrior who jumps, and thus need a Dragoon class" or even "There's no Dancer class! I know the Bard doesn't say that it needs to sing, and in fact can use any kind of performance, including Dance, and there are several feats based around bardic dance, but it's not NAMED 'Dancer'! We need a new one!"). This does not go into the other aspect of my argument -- namely, the "Your idea would work better as a prestige class" position -- out of a desire for brevity.
BlaineTog 03-11-06, 10:40 PM	I think debating about it here is about as effective as arguing politics.*Fixed, to give greater brevity without removing a single iota of meaning*