Gavinfoxx

What exactly are all the other problems?

Well, if a Barbarian realized that a series of fast, strong, overwhelming attacks at the cost of large amounts of defensive capability and small amounts of accuracy is an ideal strategy... that actually sounds quite a bit like the D&D 3.5e barbarian with alternative class features. Look up the Spirit Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy barbarian, and the Reckless Rage and Reckless Offense feats, as well as the Shock Trooper feat. It's part of the 'Ubercharger' concept that basically says: 'I will charge into a group of enemies, make a series of absolutely overwhelming attacks, one shoting them all, but completely removing my capacity to defend myself in any way, but it won't matter because they will all be dead. Then I do it again with the next cluster of enemies.' It's basically a binary save or die, like several kills you or does nothing spells; if the barbarian can charge into melee and affect the enemies at all, they are dead. If he can't get off a charge (there are lots of ways of preventing this), they are alive.

No, the idea is that they know guys by reputation. "You are the guys that beat that clan of hill giants and cleared the next province over of bandits, and killed that Dragon... we're all going to die, ahhh!"

There are daggers that are meant to pierce full plate armor. They are Rondels. They generally work after you get the knight on the ground and you and three buddies have grappled him, to go through the joints...

Hey Bears in Red Dead Redemption are no joke!

So he's, in D&D terms, a Solar who chooses to limit his capabilities to that of a Level 6 Aasimar Paladin. Or something like that.

What is DSA 3?

Actually, Gandlalf is more of a Paladin. Seriously. He has a magic horse, he fights with a sword, he inspires those around him, he very rarely does extremely minor magic...

double post.

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.

I hate hate thieves and assassin's guilds. At least calling them guilds. Call them what they are: the mafia. The term 'guild' should only be applied by these groups with the utmost irony...

The thing about a Fighter having trouble in 3.5e taking out an army, a monk being better at it, or a spellcasters being worse is... wow. Um, it displays a lack of understanding about d&d 3.5e so profound I don't know where to start. First of all, in 3.5e, Wealth By Level is a vital part of what the game expects you to have. Second, it expects you to have Strategic Flight by level 10 or so. And in Caster-land... well, think of it this way. One side has high altitude stealth bombers operating at night. The other has a medieval or renaissance army. I have a writeup of a level 9 Druid (not at the moment, I'm on my phone) that functions this way for this sort of example. He can take on an arbitrarily large low level mundane army.

Come now. They still have a chance to change the class name... AND they still have a chance to put in a tag that says whether you were raised in a tribal, rural, or urban situation...

First. Let's put it this way... Here's how I would stat out Conan (the literary / comic version, not the movies one) in D&D 3.5e: Spirit Lion Totem, Bear Totem, Whirling Frenzy Barbarian 2 / Wilderness, Penetrating Strike Rogue 3 / Strong-Arm, Skilled City Dweller (trade Ride for Tumble) Ranger 3 / Zhentarim Soldier, Thug, Dungeon Crusher, Hit and Run, Physical Prowess, Skilled City Dweller (trade Ride for Tumble) Fighter 3 / Warblade 3. A level 14 character, in a world full of lower level people. Capable of doing things that no one else in his world can do, feats that are superhuman, but subtly so. He's fast, strong, nimble, skillful, absurdly smart, literate, fantastically cunning, with a huge variety of skills. He is a fantastic grappler. He is not a berserker in how he fights -- though in an extremely rare situation, he can go into a rage-like status. He's nimble, and a competent thief. He's extremely able to take advantage of minor turns for advantage in a fight. In other words... he is nothing like the modern gaming concept of an illiterate 'barbarian' type... and also remember. 'Barbarians' conquered Rome... Frankly, I would be fine with a 'Berserker' class that does not actually have the name Barbarian, and simply has to do with a particular fighting style that anyone can learn, and the option of having a tribal / urban / rural background for anyone! To me, the Berserker archetype should be seen as tribesman, savages, gladiators, or elite forces in the army. It has to do with raging strength, resilience, and presence and capacity for large scale destruction with a melee weapon.

Personally, I would like a toggle between 'fantastic armor and weaponry' and 'realistic armor and weaponry'. One has implausibly designed and sized weapons and armor that leaves lots of skin uncovered on BOTH genders, and has the boob armor, etc. one has more historic looking everything. Let it be a player choice for which they want to use, and can change it at any time.

I wouldn't mind at high levels if there is a 'random encounter' where you are given the option to not play through it, due to the fact that you very obviously utterly outclass them. Or you could get jumped by bandits, who are like, "Alright, get out your valuables, you are being robbed by the Bandit Prince of... wait. I know you. You are the people that... that... oh my gods, it's them! We bit off more than we could chew! Let's get out of here!"

Could you specify one particular aspect of that which would help?

One thing that bugs me is that you see (for example) Rapiers used against armor... Which always bugs the hell out of me! They are not good for that! Estocs are, rapiers aren't. What I would like to see is a clarification of what weapons are civilian weapons and what weapons are military... ie, military weapons are useful in battle and when people are wearing some form of armor. Civilian weapons, because they *aren't* useful against (say) the armored Town Guard, can be worn for civilian self defense. And people wearing large amounts of armor would get stopped in town by guards who are like, 'Who are you planning on murdering, bub?' If you want a rapier-looking weapon for use in war, use a cut-and-thrust sword. Rapiers and Smallswords, despite being piercing weapons, are terrible against armor... But I would like to see people having a particular 'walk around town' kit, due to legal restrictions, for at least some towns... only light chain that can be hidden under shirts, non-military swords, whatever clubs you can find, no helms, civilian swords, etc.

Let's see... "I use this powerful ability in this scripted combat, but when I join you, I can't use it!" "Barging into people's houses and rummaging through their stuff, with no consequences!"

You should maybe read this thread too, for 3.Xe... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php%3Ftopic%3D11034 Its web cache cause brilliantgameologists is having issues. Also, this is a list of stuff thread that mentions all the ways of getting hide in plain sight and camouflage, two abilities which are needed to hide in plain sight (one lets you hide without concealment, one lets you hide while being observed. You probably want both). http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871954/Lists_of_Stuff Also, several kits had stealth. But yes, Ranger, Thief, Bard (or particular kits from them) was where most of the hiding options were.

... ... How, precisely is that to help in a computer game??

No, the idea is that everyone of the same level must have the same power / capability of contributing. If you want someone to contribute less, make them a lower level! Seriously, it's not that hard. If you want the person to be mundane and contribute less, make them lower level, and have conflict in the group due to their lack of skill and training, and then get them the training to reach parity. What I mean is that 'level' is an obvious primary measure of power level, and there is no need to obfuscate this by making some people's levels worth more than others.

No matter what we decide on paladins to be... I do not want falling mechanics which cause a loss of powers to be present in this game! Nor do I want the idea of a Paladin to be restricted to only one alignment / moral code. Both Jedi and Sith are Paladins! Consider the 3.5e Crusader (imo the best Paladin class in all editions of D&D, bar none), which simply said (I'm paraphrasing), 'You have to take some moral stance, and have some strong belief, some extreme of alignment, to be a Crusader. It doesn't matter what that belief is, but there are no True Neutral Crusaders.' I also like Ruleofcool's Legend concept of a Paladin. Those are a group of people who draw strength from the concept of Justice, be it apprehending criminals, or being vigilantes or renegades against whatever group they feel as offending their morality. I also liked that they have an always-on emanation of awareness of basic moral and ideological predilections of anyone in close proximity to them, and of likely major moral consequences of their actions...

KP: Could you explain what about those systems you would suggest that they take inspiration from? And why? RJ: Isn't perhaps providing hero/champions/gurps scalability of abiltiies too... granular? The idea that this is to be a class based game; having hundreds/thousands of choices to make in character creation is... probably undesirable. An online character generator for Legend is here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html It shows you the scope of 'possible choices' I am talking about!

Several classes had the Thief 'Hide' ability in AD&D, though; hence the use of the generic term 'Rogue', which is used as a category of classes in AD&D. Nondetection was also quite necessary for hiding in AD&D... In 3.Xe, hiding effectively is spread throughout many many abilities all over the game (which was true to a lesser extent in AD&D), beyond the move silently and hide skills, which are in quite a few classes. Things useful for hiding are Mind Blank, Darkstalker, Camouflage, a lead-lined cloak, being an incorporeal undead, having Hide in Plain Sight, Nondetection, etc. etc.