Unarchetypal Heroes

[Citizen Keen]

One of the things the HERO System prides itself on is the ability to think "outside the box" during character creation. However, 95% of the time, the box is there for a reason. If I conceive of a "fighter", I can explain my character concept very easily to other players. If I say a "priest", the same applies. Sometimes, a qualifier is required, like a "fire-wielding wizard", or a "plate-mail wearing druid", but generally, the box works.

I'd like to hear about characters for whom the box DIDN'T work. Characters with whom you really needed the HERO System to bring them to life.

Rules:


Campaign must have been High Fantasy HERO
No fancy races - I'm more interested in character concepts and occupations than "an elf, with WINGS!"
Reasonably recognizable world - if it's High Fantasy "but with mechs!", too far.


Basically, I want to hear about campaigns which could be built with D&D (or at least, almost), but character concepts that needed HERO.

Ready, set, GO!

[Old Man]

My present campaign cannot be done with D&D. None of the PCs fit into the box.

One is a high STR, low INT, laborer with little formal weapons training.

Next is a scholar who gained his skills through book learning.

Last is a real bard. The singing, non-fighting, non-thieving, non-magic kind of bard.

[Labrat]

Ready, set, GO!

Well I'm running a game called Arcane Apocalypse on yahoogroups (just now moving to HeroCentral) that has four classes of archtypes:

Plane Mage (Dimensional Wizard... nothing new)
Enforcer (More or less a light fighter... nothing new)
Explorer: Sort of new. Sure you can say that they're like thieves without the greed, but their main purpose is to scout ahead and get into places normally not accessible...
Envoy: New. Politician and smooth-talker, necessary because the PCs are representatives of a culture not of this dimension...

They are all considered 'Wardens' and have crossed over as a landing party to see whether or not the Material Plane is once again inhabitable after a wild mage-war devistation left the earth a wreck. There was enough time for the Plane Mages to teleport two kingdoms to safe pocket dimensions, but the endurance needed to keep them there after a full generation is getting low and there are side effects of 'thinning reality' that are giving an immediacy to the landing party's mission.

Is that what you're looking for?

[rreay]

Two recent real examples.

First, I wanted to play a wizard that has been doing a bunch of magical research in his tower for the last few years. He notices something is up and decided to go out into the field for real research. He's not powerful in battlefield magics because his studies have taken him a different way.

In D&D terms, he could have been a 1st level mage except that all those knowledge skills he should have go up strictly with level. I would have gladly traded several known spellls for higher knowledge skill rolls.

Second was a swashbuckling light fighter with some magical talent; a touch of dragons blood in the family tree perhaps.. It was just enough talent to let him detect magical auras and to use magical items (some interesting D&D magic items are limited to casters only). It was intended that in the future he might learn to augment his abilities making <b>himself</b> harder to hit, run faster, hit harder, sneak better, that kind of stuff.

To do this I made him primarily a thief and had him take a level of sorcerer early on. That actually gave him many of the many of the things I wanted, but I also only ever used 2 spells (detect magic and mage armor). Even though getting a familiar is good part of the strength of a sorcerer I didn't do it for character. Also, because of the utility of Mage Armor I was eventually tempted away from concept and would cast it on several party members before a battle.

So I didn't use some of the powers available to me, making me weaker than equivalent characters and pure utility of other powers tempted me away from the concepts I started with.

[The Hyborian]

My present campaign cannot be done with D&D. None of the PCs fit into the box.

One is a high STR, low INT, laborer with little formal weapons training.

Next is a scholar who gained his skills through book learning.

Last is a real bard. The singing, non-fighting, non-thieving, non-magic kind of bard.

Not to criticize anyone's campagin, but you guys must be HARDCORE roleplayers. I say that with both envy and touch of fear in my voice. I like to see players with dedication to avoiding cookie cutter characters, but what keeps them all from dying a horrible death the first time they get in a tavern brawl, much less take on a genuine "monster". If your campaign is almost entirely role playing opportunites, ok, have fun. But what do you do with characters that are ineffective in the name of originality/role play. You have a fighter without fighting skill, a scholar (possibly useful character, depending on what they know, but again it sounds like a noncombat character) and lounge singer. Dont they all die the first time a 50 pt. goblin with a shortbow shows up? Physcial conflict is a standard genre element in most fantasy stories and games. Your characters sound well adapted for lifting heavy things, knowing obsure information, and social situations, but how do they make it through the action sequences?

[Confusion]

Hmm..

I had a character in a High Fantasy game, he was a Goblin Trader. All sorts of social skills, his previous owner.. err.. Master thought it would be funny to train him in the courtly arts and things like that. He trained him a bit too well, because he bought his freedom, and eventually bought up all his previous masters debt and hired him the be the respectable face to the organization. That game also had a Pixie Thief and a typical Barbarian you know Big, Dumb and Pretty.

Currently I'm runnning a Knight Engineer. Not to odd, but he does have a bad habit of building trebuchet and ballistae if forced to stay in one place for too long.

[Doppler]

I ran a Jarl from the northlands in a GURPS Fantasy game. He was kind of like a barbarian, but with a great ability to "turn on" charm and captivate an audience and a great skills for tactics, simple engineering, sailing, and event planning (!). In most cases, you could mistake him for a crazy old street person, but when he had to do his job, he was a spectacular leader.

He was nominally a fighter, but his fighting skills were slightly below-average.

[Curufea]

Hmm, well - most of the characters from my first Western Shores could probably fit within the box. Kinda, anyway.

3 Elvan nobles, one retainer and one escaped reptilian slave.
However, the nobles had heirloom weapons and the honour and respect of the entire continent (the alternate history being that the Western Shores was conquered by the Elves and was their empire) - none of them would be classed as "fighters" as that was a pretty minor part of their skills - if I had to give them a class box to put them in, then "noble" fits best, the retainer was good with animals, but more servant than "ranger", and the slave was more of a "martial artist" headed on his way (with lots of experience points if we got that far) into turning into a dragon (which is what his race does).

Too reduce it down to the D&D genre, the nobles could be Paladin/Thieves (because thieves are the only D&D class with skills), the retainer was a Ranger/Thief and the slave companion was a Monk.

The PBeM set in the Western Shores later was primarily systemless - as the party consisted of a Demon (disguised as a Dwarf Fighter), a Goddess (disguised as an Elven Mage), a God (disguised as a Half-Elvan Ranger), a Paladin (disguised as a Priest), and a Necromancer who owned the dungeon they were entering (disguised as a Halfling Thief).

[WhammeWhamme]

Hrm...

Warrior whose main weapon was their hair - extremely long, had a club thingy bound to the end of it. Had steel wires run through it to protect it/make it more dangerous.

A merchant, whose main use to the group was that he had the money to buy (for himself ONLY - greedy :)) ten quite powerful magical rings, thus makign him something of a mage for the group... but with no real knowledge of magic, instead focusing on trade.

A deadly dangerous fighter wih average strength, equally effective versus humans, zombies, and doors...

[Curufea]

Physcial conflict is a standard genre element in most fantasy stories and games.

Well, that about sums it up doesn't it - combat being a standard. Actually it's more of a stereotype for fantasy.

By and large - combat should always be thought of as optional - then you open up games to whole new dimensions. Political, melodrama, horror, adventure, detective etc...

The trick is to think outside the D&D box. To play "What if?".

When I finish New Crobuzon Hero - there will be nothing that is boxable as anything :)

[Old Man]

My turn:

- A priest of Set whose skills include snake-style martial arts and the use of a poisoned whip.
- A mage who powers his magic by sucking end out of others.
- A blind psionic mage.
- An old, has-been mercenary captain--physically unimpressive but very skilled and knowledgeable from the start of the campaign.
- A shapeshifter.
- A high STR, low INT, laborer with little formal weapons training. :D

[Captain Obvious]

A dwarf smith with Magic Skill but no spells (to forge magic items).

A hedge mage who might not actually have known any magic (Invisible Power Effects).

A worldly village priest with no spells.

A scholar who gained his skills through book learning.

[The Hyborian]

Well, that about sums it up doesn't it - combat being a standard. Actually it's more of a stereotype for fantasy.

By and large - combat should always be thought of as optional - then you open up games to whole new dimensions. Political, melodrama, horror, adventure, detective etc...

The trick is to think outside the D&D box. To play "What if?".

When I finish New Crobuzon Hero - there will be nothing that is boxable as anything :)

Well, I dont want to end up sounding like some kind of powergamer here, I really am not. I truely enjoy gaming with significant non-combat elements.

But

It can be hard to find gamers for regular groups at all sometimes, let alone poeple who are willing to sit through a four hour session that doesn't have a action sequence or two. Most people who play the fantasy genre expect some combat/action because it part of the genre. If you read a Conan story and no one drew a sword, threw a punch, or stole something you probably would be pretty dissapointed. A "Combat Optional" campaign is going to cost you players.

And, it doesn't answer the question of what happens when your back is to the wall and violence does break out. Not every character has to be focused on conlfict, but again its part of the genre that physical conflict will erupt from time to time. If the group as a whole is unable to deal with physical threats then its difficult to feel heroic.

I suppose that you could just say that your playing a different genre than traditional fantasy, but your need special and talented players to pull this off. Its going to be hard to find players for a "horror" game, for instance, where the characters run like hell most of the time and have almost no chance of defeating the menace. Im not saying you wouldn't enjoy it. Im not even saying "I" wouldn't enjoy it with the right group of people. But its going to be a hard sell to the general gaming community, and would require some unorthodox storytelling.

I also dont want to give the impression that I am against original or non-standard characters. I rather lilke them in fact. But the characters have to be able to function within the genre and campagin setting. If your going to play in/GM lets say a Champions campaign based on the Avengers, i.e heros live in a big mansion and fight supervillians, and one of your players makes a character who's mutant power is to turn purple and pull grapefruit out of his armpits, you have a problem. Unless Baron von Badguy, leader of the villians, happens to have a vulnerability to fruit based attacks, the character really cant participate in the "fight supervillians" part of the campaign.

So, I guess I am just saying that you have to work within the expectations of your campaign when you create characters, and if I was invited to play in a fantasy campagin I would create a combat capable character of some kind, unless the GM first explained that the campaign would not include combat. And if that was the case, then I would need some information about the focus of the campaign, so I could make a charcter that would mesh with whatever we were going to do. A vatgrown cyberninja would be just as out of place in a noncombat campagin as Captain Grapefruit above would be out of place in a standard supers campaign.

[Enforcer84]

Well, I dont want to end up sounding like some kind of powergamer here, I really am not. I truely enjoy gaming with significant non-combat elements.

But

It can be hard to find gamers for regular groups at all sometimes, let alone poeple who are willing to sit through a four hour session that doesn't have a action sequence or two. Most people who play the fantasy genre expect some combat/action because it part of the genre. If you read a Conan story and no one drew a sword, threw a punch, or stole something you probably would be pretty dissapointed. A "Combat Optional" campaign is going to cost you players.

And, it doesn't answer the question of what happens when your back is to the wall and violence does break out. Not every character has to be focused on conlfict, but again its part of the genre that physical conflict will erupt from time to time. If the group as a whole is unable to deal with physical threats then its difficult to feel heroic.

I suppose that you could just say that your playing a different genre than traditional fantasy, but your need special and talented players to pull this off. Its going to be hard to find players for a "horror" game, for instance, where the characters run like hell most of the time and have almost no chance of defeating the menace. Im not saying you wouldn't enjoy it. Im not even saying "I" wouldn't enjoy it with the right group of people. But its going to be a hard sell to the general gaming community, and would require some unorthodox storytelling.

I also dont want to give the impression that I am against original or non-standard characters. I rather lilke them in fact. But the characters have to be able to function within the genre and campagin setting. If your going to play in/GM lets say a Champions campaign based on the Avengers, i.e heros live in a big mansion and fight supervillians, and one of your players makes a character who's mutant power is to turn purple and pull grapefruit out of his armpits, you have a problem. Unless Baron von Badguy, leader of the villians, happens to have a vulnerability to fruit based attacks, the character really cant participate in the "fight supervillians" part of the campaign.

So, I guess I am just saying that you have to work within the expectations of your campaign when you create characters, and if I was invited to play in a fantasy campagin I would create a combat capable character of some kind, unless the GM first explained that the campaign would not include combat. And if that was the case, then I would need some information about the focus of the campaign, so I could make a charcter that would mesh with whatever we were going to do. A vatgrown cyberninja would be just as out of place in a noncombat campagin as Captain Grapefruit above would be out of place in a standard supers campaign.



What this guy said.

[Curufea]

Pretty much the same for me. Our group know what types of games will be run too.

The only combat-heavy games I've been in recently are D&D ones. And that's mainly because those are the only rules available in D&D.

Everything else I've been in, or run, has been combat-light. Because other systems actually cover more things than just combat. It adds to the realism of the setting, rather than everyone thinking it is just a pen-and-paper adaptation of video games.

[Citizen Keen]

I'm down with The Hyborian. I do love lengthy political intrigue scenes, and mercantile negotiations. Romantic trysts leave me hot and bothered, and extensive backstreet cat-and-mouse games make me jumpy. But the core of role-playing is escapism.

I deal with bureaucracy in my real life. I deal with romantic conflicts, negotiations, and attempting to lie and keep secrets. What my life lacks is ass-kicking!. Nothing leaves me more satisfied than a well-played fight. The fight was arrived at through good role-playing channels, there are plenty of sufficient pauses for dramatic monologues, and at some point, I dive out from behind a corner, guns blazing. Or swing from a chandelier. Or punch through a wall and shout "It's clobbering time!" I like to escape.

[Eosin]

Martial Masters have always been hard for D&D/d20 - average to moderately high stat characters who through skill and dedication can just hand you your backside. Monks ain't the answer.

I ran a character once - formerly a knight who served as the kings guardian - who used his hand to block a sword meant for his charge. His sword hand. Due to his disability he was dismissed from service ...blah ... blah... drunk... blah... drunk some more... Then discovered that he had a talent for mage craft. He almost never cast spells (but could if needed) instead he relied on his somewhat diminished skills as a warrior. A great character to RP but one that would have been much harder to model in AD&D of the time...I could probably do him decently in d20.

[Captain Obvious]

Combat between evenly matched numbers of relatively weak fighters is still combat. It doesn't have to be a small handful of mighty-thewed warriors standing knee-deep in the dead every game to be a satisfying combat.

[Old Man]

Combat between evenly matched numbers of relatively weak fighters is still combat. It doesn't have to be a small handful of mighty-thewed warriors standing knee-deep in the dead every game to be a satisfying combat.

Let's face it, the fights you remember are the ones where somebody in the party died.

As for power level--I've learned the hard way to make characters that are survivable. I like roleplaying, but I wouldn't want to play the game if there was not the constant threat of mortal combat and death.

[Old Man]

Everything else I've been in, or run, has been combat-light. Because other systems actually cover more things than just combat. It adds to the realism of the setting, rather than everyone thinking it is just a pen-and-paper adaptation of video games.

I've noticed that other game systems are also less likely to have wandering monsters or other fights that don't advance the overall plot.

[Curufea]

I lilke fantasy settings that actually make sense, you see. That you can actually empathise with - because it is realistic enough that you can imagine living there.

This is why I always imagine D&D is a video game - Final Fantasy had wandering monsters, as do most CRPGs.

I've always thought - how exactly do villages survive? If all non-PCs are low level (or zero), why aren't they wiped out by the first wandering monster?

But then - combat is the only way to get experience and learn about the world (Quick - Magic User, stop studying at the university, you'll never learn spells past level one- go and and kill things immediately!)

I'm not saying "no-combat". I'm saying "combat-light". I actually think it is more believable for people to attempt to avoid mortal combat and death as much as possible (as one of the side effects, is actually death, you know). I'm a big fan of Lord of the Rings for example - it had comba, but they didn't rush into it, and there were very few alternative options.

[AnotherSkip]

You have a fighter without fighting skill, a scholar (possibly useful character, depending on what they know, but again it sounds like a noncombat character) and lounge singer?
No offence to either side but this writeup of the characters sounds like David Eddings was gaming one day..... (looks like Durnik, Belgarion and a slightly modified Silk/Mister Wolf were out adventuring.)


Anyways try this set:
a "druid": casting magish spells and doing something similar to the Al Quadim summon mage magic (but with a single ghost giving him 'ghost powers' through a 15-21 point V.P.P.), wearing as much if not more armor than the heavy hitters in the group(no platemail though, does not really exist).
a "cat man": imagine Tarzan of the Bobcats at age 14.....
a "berzerker": Red Sonja with mental disorders and an equal companion.
most of the rest of the group would be 'boxable' and I think the party "Bard" would almost be a lounge singer except she has more class....

[AmadanNaBriona]

Funny... I was going to mention Durnik as a great example of a "unarchtypal" hero that would be a breeze to do in HERO, but a nightmare in D&D

[gojira]

There's always that unique blend of bard and theif: the Disco Bandit.

I won't even get started on the Turtle Tamer or the Pastamancer.

[Old Man]

You have a fighter without fighting skill, a scholar (possibly useful character, depending on what they know, but again it sounds like a noncombat character) and lounge singer. Dont they all die the first time a 50 pt. goblin with a shortbow shows up? Physcial conflict is a standard genre element in most fantasy stories and games. Your characters sound well adapted for lifting heavy things, knowing obsure information, and social situations, but how do they make it through the action sequences?

Well they finished their first fight without any real damage taken. Luck had something to do with it and an axe swung by a STR 18 guy hurts. The scholar is also able to use a bow which he did to good effect. The bard was tied up.

Low level combat is just as good as high powered combat, it just lack some of the special wiz-bang effects. I was honestly surprised and pleased that my players came up with the characters they did. Giving them obstacles that won't kill them outright will be a challenge but that's part of being GM.

[Old Man]

Funny... I was going to mention Durnik as a great example of a "unarchtypal" hero that would be a breeze to do in HERO, but a nightmare in D&D


Tazendra's lackey (Malachai?) from Phoenix Guards would also be quite difficult to pull off.

[Curufea]

I think it's be pointed out before - literary fantasy characters are possible in Hero - and not possible in D&D, with maybe one or two exceptions. Take Lord of the Rings for example - you could have Boromir as a fighter, and that's about it. Maybe Theoden as well. No one else actually fits in the rules.

[Old Man]

I think it's be pointed out before - literary fantasy characters are possible in Hero - and not possible in D&D, with maybe one or two exceptions. Take Lord of the Rings for example - you could have Boromir as a fighter, and that's about it. Maybe Theoden as well. No one else actually fits in the rules.

I think it's been stated before that the entire fellowship would have been wiped out with the first encounter of orcs because only one or two of them wear armor.

[Just Joe]

Well, my conception of D&D boxes is about 20 years old, so the bowes might be more numerous or larger now, but these characters certainly couldn't have been done in D&D in the "old days":

1) An old (i.e. 60+) former mercenary captain, now mentor to a young knight. He was politically savvy and world-wise.

2) A young (c. 20 y.o.) son of a famous mercenary leader. He was a womanizing gambler without much direction in his life, hoping one day to be a great warrior but too lazy and too afraid of failing to try very hard.

Both are arguably fighters, but were only about average combatants compared to the other PC's, were not very strong, and didn't wear much armor. Each also had significant Agility and/or Intellect skills.

Those were characters I played. When I GM'ed two characters that stand out were a merchant and a church bureaucrat. That game was half-way to low fantasy, but the characters were much more capable and interesting than you would think from my minimal descriptions.

[Pattern Ghost]

My present campaign cannot be done with D&D. None of the PCs fit into the box.

Actually, 3rd (or whatever .x they are up to) edition can do it. It has a slightly bigger box. Not that I'm a DnD advocate, actually haven't played the new game yet.


One is a high STR, low INT, laborer with little formal weapons training.

I'm thinking this can be done with the Commoner NPC class.



Next is a scholar who gained his skills through book learning.

Easy one: Expert NPC class.


Last is a real bard. The singing, non-fighting, non-thieving, non-magic kind of bard.

Again, Expert NPC class. It's kind of a catchall.

Now, the survivability of the NPC classes will be much lower, but you can adjust the encounters appropriately, and in a lot of cases the PCs will interacting with NPCs of the same group of classes, so within the same power level.

I've actually toyed with the idea of doing a low-power game with the new rules.

[Captain Obvious]

Attempting this in D&D will run up against a wall unless you have real hard-core role-players. No one else is going to want to play a Commoner or an Expert if someone else is going to play a Fighter or a full-fledged Bard. PC classes are heavily stacked when compared to the NPC classes.

[Pattern Ghost]

Obviously.

[Fredwidge]

I always wanted to explore to the fullest the gnomish engineer concept who builds trilions of gadgets and bombs without knowing any spells at all. Can't do it in my current D&D game. Kinda like the dwarven smith Captain Obvious mentioned earlier.

[Old Man]

I'm thinking this can be done with the Commoner NPC class.


Uh, aren't the NPC classes called NPC classes because they are for NPCs not players?

I gotta agree with Cpatain Obvious. Even if you cludged the rules into allowing the players to choose "NPC Commoner" none(?) would because it would be stupid in D&D land.

[joen00b]

As 'standard' as it may sound, one of my players wanted to play a 'stereotypical' Martial Artist from the Silver Screen. Not so much the fantastical abilities to jump over castle walls or things like things like this, but the classic Bruce Lee fight through insurmountable odds.

This included things like his second wind: Our hero is down for the count, getting pummelled all over the room and knocked through rice paper walls, BUT THEN! Out of nowhere, he finds the one thing that gives him all the strength he needs to win out the day, and he jumps up full of vigor and vim and slobberknocks the bad guy.

This was given as a 4d6 simplified healing, self only, 1 recoverable charge per day, only half BODY is healed, activation of 9 or less. This should give him on average 60% of his total STUN back, and about 30% of his body. Nifty ability, bought it relatively cheap.

The other ability was when he gets all rip roarin' pised off. He walks into Dojang to find a rival school has decimated it's pristine serenity and has killed his master. Months go by before he sees anyone from the rival school, and when he does, he gets enraged (possibly berserk, but for his character, enraged). He, of course, loses his cool and attacks with an unforseen fury of punchs on the poor rival school member.

This was bought as an autofire punch (7 shots), 0 END, only when enraged,a nd the enraged is triggered when a companion 'falls' in combat (knocked unconcious or worse).

I don't have the character on me as the Flash Drive files became corrupt, but there were a few more powers that really could only be emulated in the HERO System, and he was very pleased with the results.

[MordeanGrey]

Mordean Grey was my character in a FH game run by a friend. He was a shadow mage who summoned shadow creatures and bent (or tried to bend them) to his will. All of his spells used special effects related to "shadow" (i.e.--shadow armor, cloak of shadows, shadow movement, etc.)

The summoned creatures were custom designed in cooperation with the GM and ranged from tiny "messenger" shadows with little ability other than fast movement at night, to powerful shadow demons which were a major pain to try and control if you summoned one. (Just ask the other players about the night I blew a roll and accidently summoned a shadow demon, and then couldn't control it... the demon demanded a sacrifice before it would leave, and my character (not a fine upstanding moral fellow) released it into an unsuspecting city. Much chaos and murder followed.)

In general I feel that Hero handles summoning and controlling creatures much better than D&D. The FH game I ran in the Planescape setting really worked well with the Hero rules. There were so many custom races and characters in the game that we spent a lot of time building racial and cultural packages, etc. In fact, I can't imagine trying to run the same setting using the original AD&D rules.

[Funksaw]

I always wanted to play a Tinker/Archetect in D&D. The guy who wasn't really a good fighter, or rogue, or whatever, but could build stuff. A guy who makes clockwork stuff. An inventor.

Eberron came close with that weird class that they came up with, but that really ended up more like a spellcaster class than anything else and you needed to know ALL the rules in all 3 of the PHBs...

Let's see - I did want to play a lawyer in Ravenloft - the Bard didn't fit because the Bard is pretty much a spellcaster.

[Curufea]

I'd really like to see all of these characters, you know. Any chance of putting writeups online?

[Pattern Ghost]

Uh, aren't the NPC classes called NPC classes because they are for NPCs not players?

I gotta agree with Cpatain Obvious. Even if you cludged the rules into allowing the players to choose "NPC Commoner" none(?) would because it would be stupid in D&D land.

Obviously not obvious enough.

Let me make it clear: Your three choices of characters are obviously underpowered weenies in combat. So are the NPC classes. Therefore,the group is just as doable in DnD. There would be no rules cludge. The rules for running NPCs are right there in black and white. (Or brown and lighter brown, as it were.)

Suppose you started an adventure with these three guys. The Experts are actually quite capable of adventuring, the Commoner would likely have a decent CON if he's a laborer, so his low hit die wouldn't be that much of a hinderance. You'd probably want to start the group off at about third to fifth level. You'd set the ratings of their encounters to several levels below the PC's level, so that they could handle the ocassional combat.

DnD doesn't come with a setting in the core rules. There's nothing "stupid" about running them in YOUR OWN SETTING, because there IS NO DND LAND IN THE CORE RULES.

There ARE concepts that cannot be done in DnD. Your characters, however, can be. Certainly not with the depth or detail allowed by Hero or any good generic system (I think GURPS works well for lower level, skill-intensive stuff too.), but it can be done.

And if the NPC classes are too weak, there's nothing wrong with the character waking up one day, deciding, "Hey, I'm getting tired of running away from goblins with pointy sticks, I think I need to learn how to fight better," and taking a level of Warrior or even Fighter.

Aristocrats and Experts are pretty close to playable as PCs without any modification. You could go with an Aristocrat for the scholarly type (access to education, and he gets some decent combat skills out of it), an Expert for the Bard, and a Commoner with high STR and CON for the Laborer, and have a halfway decent group.

Or have you actually read that section to know why and how the NPC classes function and to see the suggestions for using them as PCs? Because, although not recommended, those suggestions are there. Or are you just dismissing a post out of hand because it challenges your assertion?

[Pattern Ghost]

I always wanted to play a Tinker/Archetect in D&D. The guy who wasn't really a good fighter, or rogue, or whatever, but could build stuff. A guy who makes clockwork stuff. An inventor.

Eberron came close with that weird class that they came up with, but that really ended up more like a spellcaster class than anything else and you needed to know ALL the rules in all 3 of the PHBs...

Let's see - I did want to play a lawyer in Ravenloft - the Bard didn't fit because the Bard is pretty much a spellcaster.

I think you put your finger on the biggest problem with DnD: The game seems to be designed so that access to magic at higher levels is a necessity. And the skills system, while better than previous editions, lacks a lot of depth. 3rd Edition added a bit of flexibility, but it's still far from a generic system. Hero just does a lot of stuff better.

[Citizen Keen]

DnD doesn't come with a setting in the core rules. There's nothing "stupid" about running them in YOUR OWN SETTING, because there IS NO DND LAND IN THE CORE RULES.

I agree with everything you said about using the NPC classes. However, D&D does come with a "standard" campaign - Greyhawk.

As described in Thirty Years of Adventure : A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0786934980/qid=1109150140/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2303375-7536015?v=glance&s=books), the Dungeons and Dragons books (at least the 3/3.5 ones) operate under the assumption of Greyhawk as the default campaign setting. Thus, the Gods described in the DMG are the Greyhawk gods. The Monsters described in the Monster Manual are the Greyhawk Monsters (thus the need for a Monster's of Faerun type book). The races and classes are the races and classes of Greyhawk.

Just to keep the facts straight. (And these are the facts to the best o' my knowledge.)

[Pattern Ghost]

The default setting for those areas of the books that need to make an assumption on the setting is indeed Greyhawk. Now, tell me everything you know about the Greyhawk setting based on a read-through of the core books. That's a bit harder, since we only have some monsters, the names of some dieties and some spells named after Greyhawk mages. You cannot construct a Greyhawk specific scenario out of the core books, because you have no history, no geography, and no people to populate it. Therefore, you have no setting that amounts to anything other than some flavor text.

Granted, the rules are structured as such that the game is expected (espcially at the higher levels) to be played in a Greyhawk type world full of powerful magic, strong monsters, and all the rest that goes along with the DnD flavor of fantasy. And it's hard to seperate the rules from the style of play. But, for lower-key play, with lower level encounters, it's not impossible, just not ideal.

[The Hyborian]

I think you put your finger on the biggest problem with DnD: The game seems to be designed so that access to magic at higher levels is a necessity. And the skills system, while better than previous editions, lacks a lot of depth. 3rd Edition added a bit of flexibility, but it's still far from a generic system. Hero just does a lot of stuff better.


Your on the right track, but the "problem" with D&D is that in its heart and soul its a highly abstract combat sytem intended to support miniatures. Any role playing is tacked on afterward. The classes are balanced for combat utility (well, in theory, please lets not have a subthread about clerics). D&D works best with a group of people who want to fight the orc, get the pie, and move to the next room.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I have played a stupid amount of D&D in my life and it can be fun if you have the right expectations going in. But the support for non-combat gaming is mininmal. The skill system is very basic. Its basically about getting to the dungeon (dungeon being the castle/magic forest/ruined tower/moist hole in the ground) surviving the dungeon, and healing up aftward, hopefully on a big pile of loot and ale mugs.

As a side note, in 3/3.5 DnD the best shot at a "out of the box" character is usually the Rogue class. It gets the most skill points. You could do the classic fantasy thief, but also a merchant, a diplomat, a prospector, a spy, etc. All you have to do is rationalize why they have the sneak attack ability.

[Old Man]

DnD doesn't come with a setting in the core rules. There's nothing "stupid" about running them in YOUR OWN SETTING, because there IS NO DND LAND IN THE CORE RULES.


I think you misunderstood my comment. What I meant was if you got a group of strangers together and told them they were playing D&D, what are the chances they would pick the previously stated NPC classes? Would a standard adventure run smoothly if half of the party were made up of such characters?

Generally in most D&D campaigns it would be foolish to run such a weak character if other players were running the standard classes. I just cringe at the the thought of trying even a high level group of Commoners in something like The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth or the The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun.



And if the NPC classes are too weak, there's nothing wrong with the character waking up one day, deciding, "Hey, I'm getting tired of running away from goblins with pointy sticks, I think I need to learn how to fight better," and taking a level of Warrior or even Fighter.


I think that's pretty cool, and am glad they can do that now.



Or have you actually read that section to know why and how the NPC classes function and to see the suggestions for using them as PCs? Because, although not recommended, those suggestions are there. Or are you just dismissing a post out of hand because it challenges your assertion?

I'm not dismissing anything, just find it odd that the solution involved NPC classes. I was honestly surprised/confused by such a suggestion.

[Old Man]

I just cringe at the the thought of trying even a high level group of Commoners in something like The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth or the The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun.

Well, Tharizdun is just insanely hard for the stated levels. But yeah.

[Curufea]

I like the idea that no mutilation is a good thing.

If you find yourself mutilating your character ideas to fit the rules. Or find yourself mutilating the rules to fit your character ideas - you're using the wrong system.

[Pattern Ghost]

I think you misunderstood my comment. What I meant was if you got a group of strangers together and told them they were playing D&D, what are the chances they would pick the previously stated NPC classes? Would a standard adventure run smoothly if half of the party were made up of such characters?

I don't think you'd possibly be able to do a standard adventure, but I was looking at it from the angle of your own story, where your players picked totally unexpected character types, which were unconventional. I'd think you'd have adjusted your game to compensate, as well.



Generally in most D&D campaigns it would be foolish to run such a weak character if other players were running the standard classes. I just cringe at the the thought of trying even a high level group of Commoners in something like The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth or the The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun.


Actually, that might be amusing. =) Of course, with DnD, you'll get standard classes as choices most of the time, and anything non-standard has a fair shot at being munchkiny. Of course, with Fantasy Hero, players are encouraged to build something more or less from scratch, so you get happy accidents like your example group.







I'm not dismissing anything, just find it odd that the solution involved NPC classes. I was honestly surprised/confused by such a suggestion.


Sorry about that comment. I thought it sounded very bad when I read it later, but I didn't edit it out b/c I had to run to work.

[Pattern Ghost]

Its basically about getting to the dungeon (dungeon being the castle/magic forest/ruined tower/moist hole in the ground) surviving the dungeon, and healing up aftward, hopefully on a big pile of loot and ale mugs.


I think that quote sums it up quite well. The dungeon crawl can certainly be fun. The new edition seems to really encourage the tactical/wargame approach to using the minis a bit overmuch (though I think you could ignore some of that altogether and still be left with a playable system) for my tastes as well. But the bottom line is the game is designed for powering up to be able to take on the next biggest dungeon, not for what has become roleplaying in the intervening years since its release.

One thing that always annoys me on other boards when Hero is mentioned is that so many people think it's a rules lawyery game. The first time I saw the Disadvantages side of a Champions character sheet, my only thought was "WOW! These guys have built a game mechanic to help you roleplay!" Ars Magica was the next game out that did something similar, then Amber DRPG (that I picked up, that is.) BUT, Hero was there first (IME), with rules built to encourage players to get into character. Now all the rules-light gamers out there, whose games are very much inspired by this aspect of Hero/Champions, denegrate the game on the grounds of it being rules-intensive, when a huge chunk of the rules are a roleplaying aid. Not to mention that 4th Edition Champions had one of the best sections on roleplaying I've read in any game book. (Sorry, Steve, but I'm going to have to admit to having glossed over the similar material in Fifth. =)