• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

D&D Adventurer WIP Blog Pt. II

Just to note the obvious thing here

Having CA or CC (composite classes) is literally the same thing but spread into a bunch of different pages (not to mention inaccurate).

If anything and we decide to favor the rules saying "Multi-Class Restrictive" over "Multi-Class Unrestrictive" (there are rules for both), then CA is still the most accurate portrayal and must fall under a niche rule of stating which classes the character would have. Restricting them to one class per page is still the less accurate decision here.

Gonna go back to No Man's Sky, my computer was making noises at me and I suspect that is done now.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
1e =/= Every edition. Like I said above, if we're going with OG rules then no D&D profile is allowed as originally (prior to AD&D) you could only hit Level 3 max and were told to go get the other version if you wanted to go higher.
Click to expand...
The point is to show how Composite is impossible, both within the individual edition, no less "all of them".
 
So 2e blocks non-humanoids (as in, sub-demi-human) and those classes whose alignments do not directly contradict each other (example is Assassin and Cleric, an Evil vs a Good). Literally the other highlighted bits just say stuff like "He still has to follow the stuff of his other class" which isn't a limitation.

So 2e is fine for CA, generally speaking.
 
@Mr. Bambu

Which is not a "true" composite, as that is precisely the point.

Edit: I'll say it again, Composite Adventurer, a "true" CA, is impossible: both within individual edition, and even more so when taken them all into account.
 
How? As far as I know every playable race is a demi-human to an extent. The only relevant thing there is alignments.

The only matter is whether we choose to use restrictive rules from the settings that have them or unrestrictive rules from the settings that have them. Assuming we choose the former then CA still has a right to exist simply with an explanation regarding the fact that OP in match should state what classes are used (I suspect Wizard will always be chosen). If we choose the latter, CA remains as it exists currently.
 
If we want to keep it I do think you'll need to add stuff in the weaknesses section
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Lephyr is 100% correct, the Composite is impossible per the rules of the game.
Click to expand...
You've been saying this before you knew what was going on. I will respect Lephyr because they do have an idea about the game and its functionality. You do not in fact know the rules and have said literally the exact opposite (the game makes it technically possible but does not make it likely) elsewhere. Forgive me if I am now only speaking to Lephyr on this subject.
 
So you are just going to ignore me and act like nothing I can say is of any input? That's very childish, and disconcerning in regards to the progress of the thread.

Regardless, Lephyr has basically destroyed the notion of the profile in its current state, showing it cannot be made.
 
Damn, just checked 4th edition. Never knew it was that restrictive, holy heck (am mainly a 3e guy).

-

Anyway, @Bambu, wouldn't it be easier to make a Composite for every individual Edition? And put the explanation for each individual ones. That way you are actually being accurate, while staying true to the rules in-verse. That's what I propose, anyway.

For those that want the 4e stuff, here:

Capture 2018-12-31-14-06-14
 
It can be made, it just can't use every racial ability and has some notable weaknesses due to class restrictions.

Unless everyone is confusing a Composite D&D class with a Multi-Classed Character. In which case the former would be some weird hyper mutant.
 
I am gonna address knowledgeable members, DMUA. And that includes you what with you knowing at least a shmidge on the game. Matt has demonstrated zero understanding of the verse and continues to contradict himself and now simply supports the user who supports his own ideal. This is what I am seeing before me. I do not intend to sound obnoxious, as you put it. I intend to discuss relevant matters with those who have something to say/debate aside from "No, I take issue with its existence and don't like it."

What Lephyr has shown us is that in 1e CA is impossible and in 2e it has a singular relevant rule. CA is viable. These are both true.
 
Actually there was some weird hyper mutant Human/Elf/Dwarf/Hafling thing in the Dark Sun world. Forget what it could do tho
 
@Lephyr There is a reason most didn't really like 4e. The game itself is too restrictive and mechanical.

As for adventurer for each edition, that might be the least accurate of them all, unless you mean classes-by-edition. Which would be painful to write up, all things considered.

Disambiguation for "Mage (D&D)"- did you mean...

  • The mage from Dungeons and Dragons
  • The mage from AD&D (1st Edition)
  • The mage from 2nd edition
  • The mage from 3rd edition
  • The mage from 3.5e
  • The mage from 4th edition
  • The mage from 5th edition
...for every class. And almost all of them would have the same powers with little to no variation. Ultimately Composite Adventurer with notations on weaknesses (which were going to be noted, to be sure) is still the most accurate portrayal even if we choose to disregard the Less Restrictive Ruleset present in certain versions of the game and favor the old-or-heavily-hated rules of the others. As it stands, I believe it'd be unwise to use 5e in regards to this (consciously was avoiding it) since, unlike the others, it is ultimately unfinished and still getting new publications.

As it stands, 3e, 3.5e, and 2e (to an extent) practically fully allows CA, with 2e making the obvious rules of opposite alignments not working out.

Meanwhile, 4e and 1e restrict CA heavily (not to the point the profile is less accurate, merely to the point that a weakness must be noted).
 
What I propose is, instead of "Composite Adventurer", be it be "The Adventurer (Insert Edition)", then mention what is all he could do, and explain that not all at once per the rules of the game. Something like a hybrid of a race/faction profile and what we do in the site for Cloud or Sora.

How does that sound?

Edit: Is even perfect now because of the tabbers for P/A thread.
 
Overall Composite Adventurer (or, as you put it, "Adventurer", which is also acceptable) is still more accurate than that proposal in that the editions themselves restrict it. It can all be the same character, the only difference in editions are the rules in which you play (and sometimes changes to the Lore, such as the aforementioned Dawn War that occurred as the cosmic background to 4th edition).
 
So like: "Adventuer (Mystara)": 9-B | 9-A | High 8-C | Low 7-B | High 2-A while restricted. At least Low 1-C, likely much higher when unrestricted | At least Low 1-C, likely High 1-B
 
depending on whether or not Azzy finds more stuff on giants or other monsters from roundabouts those levels 9-A and High 8-C might shift to 8-B and 8-A
 
"Matt has demonstrated zero understanding of the verse and continues to contradict himself and now simply supports the user who supports his own ideal"

Not really, I have been saying that the profile is unmakable since the very beginning and I have repeatedly and tirelessly explained why. Lephyr simply gave good points and I agree with him. I can agree with other people.
 
I mean there is also 4e's Hybrid class. a class that is all about mixing 2 of any classes and said Hybrid class can take the multi class feat. Making the Hybrid class adventurer lore wise have up too 3 classes.
 
Okay. I do feel it's probably better to do like "Fighter" rather than per edition since it would run into a lot of sameness
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
Wouldn't it be easier to make a Composite for every individual Edition? And put the explanation for each individual ones. That way you are actually being accurate, while staying true to the rules in-verse. That's what I propose, anyway.
Click to expand...
Personally, I would suggest individual composite profiles for each class, if this is going to be done at all. That would be much better and more understandable and wouldn't have such repetition either.
 
Yeah. To avoid controversy Bambu just finish the profile. Then I or as a group we'll just split the abilities for every class.

So it'll be like "Composite Fighter", "Composite Psion", "Composite Cleric" etc.

While it makes more profiles, it's less controversial and isn't a massive adjustment to be made
 
Interesting question. What would we do for classes like, oh, I don't know, Factotum?

Also, the weaknesses of the classes and cross-classes were never going to be ignored. The biggest issue was compiling the information.
 
The Tier 2 keys will be slightly different. Non-Casters only have limited Celric Powers and Wizards/Psions gain Cleric stuff. Tier 1 would be the same for literally everyone tho
 
Also just an aside.

I would prefer if the classes where handled as

"Fighter (Dungeons & Dragons), Mage (Dungeons & Dragons, etc."

As opposted to "Composite Fighter, Composite Mage, etc."
 
Qawsedf234 said:
Yeah. To avoid controversy Bambu just finish the profile. Then I or as a group we'll just split the abilities for every class.
So it'll be like "Composite Fighter", "Composite Psion", "Composite Cleric" etc.

While it makes more profiles, it's less controversial and isn't a massive adjustment to be made
Click to expand...
Tempted to just end the headache and take the less-accurate path of composite classes. Either way classes like Wizard/Psion/Cleric will practically be indistinguishable from other classes thanks to abilities like Limited Wish/Miracle/Reality Revision/etc.

I just wanna get back to important stuff rather than debate what is literally the mootest of points.
 
ZacharyGrossman273 said:
I also feel like we don't need a wall of text for each


Max level they'd be Low 2-C I think
Click to expand...
This is wrong. The game has infrastructure for becoming Immortals or Greater Deities (High 2-A/2-A respectively at minimum, not to mention Immortals becoming Old Ones or at least breaking their current Dimensional Vortex)
 
Yeah that's my suggestion Bambu. Its a less controversial option and the workload isn't increased by that much. But it'll get a pass rather than like five more threads of this

> Max level they'd be Low 2-C I think

Every class is capable of becoming a God, Immortal, or Old Ones
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

XSOULOFCINDERX
Dire Wolf (Carnivores) vs Dire Wolf (D&D) [0-2-0]
Replies
5
Views
265
Tllmbrg
Tllmbrg
Mr. Bambu
Epic (Cool Dudes Only) Dungeons and Dragons Discussion Thread
8 9 10
Replies
372
Views
17K
XSOULOFCINDERX
XSOULOFCINDERX
XSOULOFCINDERX
  • Locked
D&D Tyrannosaur revisions.
Replies
16
Views
1K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Qawsedf234
Dungeons and Dragons 1-A / High 1-A justification rewrite
Replies
23
Views
2K
Eseseso
Eseseso
Dinamic8000
About D&D profiles...
Replies
8
Views
2K
Imaginym
Imaginym
Back
Top