Sunday, October 4, 2009

0e Classes - Starting Lineup

For some time, I have been mulling over re-writing the 0e classes. I have narrowed my initial set of classes down to six, corresponding to the six attributes. My 0e class list consists of the following classes, and the related prime attributes. I am starting with three fighting classes, and three casting classes.

Fighting-man - Strength (includes Mercenaries, Valkyries and Soldiers)
Rogue - Dexterity (includes Catburglars, Swashbucklers, Pirates)
Barbarian - Constitution (includes Amazons, Gladiators, Berserkers)

Magic-User - Intelligence (includes Wizards, Magicians and Witches)
Cleric - Wisdom (includes Pigrims, Paladins and Druidesses)
Psionicist - Charisma (includes Oracles, Pyromancers and Hypnotists)

As I posted earlier, I am intending to tackle the Psionicist class first, simply because it deserves better treatment than it received in the 0e and 1e materials.

3 comments:

The Rusty Battle Axe said...

I like it. I think the biggest challenge is the Barbarian. I like what I have seen of your Psioncist.

Be sure to check out the Brave Halfling take on the thief. It covers a lot of familiar ground but I think it is particularly well-done.

http://carpgp.blogspot.com/2009/09/delving-deeper-1-optional-human-classes.html

Akrasia said...

Interesting idea. I'll be following the development of it! :D

No mention of illusionists, I notice, although I assume that they naturally fall into the 'Magic-user' category.

Personally, I would go with 'Ranger' for Constitution, instead of 'Barbarian'. I've never liked the idea of using the 'barbarian' as a character class. It's a cultural description, IMO.

Finally, I would urge you to use the term 'thief' instead of 'rogue.' Anyone can be a 'rogue'!

A Paladin In Citadel said...

Thanks for the comments. And thanks for the link to the Brave Halfling Thief. I'm heading over there now.

Good point about using the term Barbarian. It is a problematic term for that category. I want that Constitution-based "Barbarian" category to capture such people as the Spartans from "300", Conan, Amazons, Gladiators from the movie "Gladiator" and the like. People whose ethic is based on health, survival and endurance. The Ranger could certainly fall under Constitution, as they spend a lot of time in the wild, just like Barbarians. The idea of having constitution as a prime attribute is that it represents stamina, or robustness, so any class that must brave the elements or win contests by outlasting their opponent, or endure hardship, would use constitution as their prime attribute.

The same principle applies to the Dexterity. Any class that relies on speed, quickness, coordination or sleigh-of-hand would use Dexterity as their prime attribute. So absolutely, Thief belongs in that category, as does acrobat. I will change the dexterity category to Thief, although not all characters that live by their quickness will be thieves. For example, I envision Dexterity to apply to cavaliers / musketeers (a la The Three Musketeers). For the Dexterity-based classes, my approach is to make them fighters who rely on their speed, or use misdirection, rather than their strength, to win battles. The old "thieving" skills will be taken down a notch.

Yes, Illusionists would fall under magic user, as would Warlocks, Sorcerers and the like.

Most of the differences between sub-classes to the main classes will be slight. Defining one's self as a sub-class of the six main classes will be substantially for flavour purposes.