Nonexistent/underrepresented RPG roles

[Lhynn]

I think murderhoboness becomes much more incentivized in any closed economy game where you cannot farm indefinitely

Yep, though Vince solved this by making the game absolute ****, everything has a opportunity cost. If you kill instead of talking you will be good at killing but bad at talking.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't murderhobo because I roleplay as myself(a heckin good person)

[rusty_shackleford]

Thieves should be ****** in combat compared to any dedicated warrior class.

Yes, that's the topic. They suck at the main thing D&D is about.

Having someone play a thief means you're designing a game differently just for the thief player

That's why they added all those feats, because losers can't play their classes to their strengths unless it's clearly marked out in the rules.

Thief existing implies other classes can't be stealthy

not going to bother to regurgitate ~20 years of debate here, but it's a very deep dive with no real answer beyond a lot of people thinking adding thief was a big mistake

[Norfleet]

I think murderhoboness becomes much more incentivized in any closed economy game where you cannot farm indefinitely. Ie, games where the are only a set number of encounters or exp to get, period. So this leads to paranoia "oh, I am not going to be strong enough to beat the final boss, I need to mine everything!". Whereas if there is some ability to leisurely juice up your character, like being able to farm respawning enemies, then there is less pressure to do so. Fire Emblem 4 (strong incentive to kill every enemy unit before the mission ends) vs Fire Emblem Fates: Birthright (the mission ended before we killed everybody? No biggie. We can make it up later).

Nah, BOTH patterns promote murderhoboism. Just different flavors of murderhoboism. In the first version, you're emphasizing the murdering, in the second version, you're emphasizing the hoboing as the party becomes more of a roving band. But whether you a MURDERhobo, or a murderHOBO, you're going to be driven to murderhobo. Neither of these patterns encourages you not to murderhobo, or at least doesn't reward it.

Yep, though Vince solved this by making the game absolute ****, everything has a opportunity cost. If you kill instead of talking you will be good at killing but bad at talking.

Honestly, that's not really good design or realistic. As a wise man once said, "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.". Similarly, "Walk softly and carry a black stick."

Ultmately, your choice to talk or fight is diminished when you no longer really have a choice because you're forced to choose one from the beginning of the game.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Yes, that's the topic. They suck at the main thing D&D is about.

Having someone play a thief means you're designing a game differently just for the thief player

That's why they added all those feats, because losers can't play their classes to their strengths unless it's clearly marked out in the rules.

Thief existing implies other classes can't be stealthy

not going to bother to regurgitate ~20 years of debate here, but it's a very deep dive with no real answer beyond a lot of people thinking adding thief was a big mistake

Is gameplay all about combat? If so, then you don't need to think about utility classes. In a JRPG where all characters are expected to fight, then it doesn't matter if you hold a big sword or a little dagger so long as you are expected to deal at least a viable amount of damage to complete the game.

If you game is not all about combat like in certain WRPG simulators, and much of the gameplay is about non combat stuff, then it should be okay for there to be some classes that aren't as good as combat, since combat won't be the end-all-be-all to the game. As long as you can somehow still complete the game (be it with items or extra party members to make up for your deficiencies, or ignoring certain encounters, etc).

[UltraFan123]

Mages in heavy armor. I mean being able to use magic to either reduce the weight of equipment or raise the user's physical prowess.
The Arcane Warrior mage subclass in Dragon Age Origins was really cool with that.

Of all the things we got from Tolkien, the idea that "arcane wizards need to be robed guys without armor" is the only one that I was never really a fan of.

[rusty_shackleford]

Wizards can't wear armor because it causes magic to explode

[UltraFan123]

It wasn't even because Gandalf couldn't wear armor. He was an angel-adjacent so powerful that almost nothing in middle earth could hurt him, which became even twice as true when he became The White.

Game designers coming up with "oh armor interferes with arcane energy because yes" simply because they think that wizards should be mini-Gandalfs.

[Norfleet]

Of all the things we got from Tolkien, the idea that "arcane wizards need to be robed guys without armor" is the only one that I was never really a fan of.

Wizards being robed guys is older than Tolkien. Witchcraft is traditionally associated with nudity. The robes are just a convenience because it makes it easier for the wizards to get naked. The robes just stick around because in a G and PG-rated material, people cannot be getting naked. If you wanted to take it further, the wizards should get naked when doing serious magicking.

[UltraFan123]

Of all the things we got from Tolkien, the idea that "arcane wizards need to be robed guys without armor" is the only one that I was never really a fan of.

Wizards being robed guys is older than Tolkien. Witchcraft is traditionally associated with nudity. The robes are just a convenience because it makes it easier for the wizards to get naked. The robes just stick around because in a G and PG-rated material, people cannot be getting naked. If you wanted to take it further, the wizards should get naked when doing serious magicking.

Huh, so that's why undead liches make such powerful wizards. You can't get more naked than a bare skeleton.

[Magick]

Of all the things we got from Tolkien, the idea that "arcane wizards need to be robed guys without armor" is the only one that I was never really a fan of.

Wizards being robed guys is older than Tolkien. Witchcraft is traditionally associated with nudity. The robes are just a convenience because it makes it easier for the wizards to get naked. The robes just stick around because in a G and PG-rated material, people cannot be getting naked. If you wanted to take it further, the wizards should get naked when doing serious magicking.

I always took it as being similar to the barbarian. They don't need it / above it. Their magic is also their armour, offence also is a good defence.
(Ofc ****** if get silenced, but eh).

[Norfleet]

Of all the things we got from Tolkien, the idea that "arcane wizards need to be robed guys without armor" is the only one that I was never really a fan of.

Wizards being robed guys is older than Tolkien. Witchcraft is traditionally associated with nudity. The robes are just a convenience because it makes it easier for the wizards to get naked. The robes just stick around because in a G and PG-rated material, people cannot be getting naked. If you wanted to take it further, the wizards should get naked when doing serious magicking.

I always took it as being similar to the barbarian. They don't need it / above it. Their magic is also their armour, offence also is a good defence.
(Ofc ****** if get silenced, but eh).

Nah, for the wizard, being naked is part of the connection to magic. Barbarians, on the other hand, are not actually opposed to armor and can wear armor perfectly fine, and in the literature, Conan does when it is available and the situation calls for it. Of course, they're also not opposed to just a furry loincloth. You're probably not going to see a barbarian in full plate, though. Barbarian cultures are not advanced enough to create it, and barbarians of advanced cultures are uninterested in it.

[Magick]

Wizards being robed guys is older than Tolkien. Witchcraft is traditionally associated with nudity. The robes are just a convenience because it makes it easier for the wizards to get naked. The robes just stick around because in a G and PG-rated material, people cannot be getting naked. If you wanted to take it further, the wizards should get naked when doing serious magicking.

I always took it as being similar to the barbarian. They don't need it / above it. Their magic is also their armour, offence also is a good defence.
(Ofc ****** if get silenced, but eh).

Nah, for the wizard, being naked is part of the connection to magic. Barbarians, on the other hand, are not actually opposed to armor and can wear armor perfectly fine, and in the literature, Conan does when it is available and the situation calls for it. Of course, they're also not opposed to just a furry loincloth. You're probably not going to see a barbarian in full plate, though. Barbarian cultures are not advanced enough to create it, and barbarians of advanced cultures are uninterested in it.

I play mages and it would just feel "off" to be clad head to toe in heavy armor (unless fighting primarily as a BattleMage with weapon enchantments).
A proper wizard should display power and dominance by showing he doesn't NEED armor. He has his spells and the big, brainless lump of muscle holding a shield for that. It's a self confidence and style thing.
At most I'd have a thin breastplate or mail shirt or something hidden under my clothes, I'd certainly not want to "display" full-armor.

"These comfortable robes and my own spells and power are all I need, come at me with your tree branch, peasant."

[rusty_shackleford]

Magic is gay so you have to wear a dress

[Norfleet]

I play mages and it would just feel "off" to be clad head to toe in heavy armor (unless fighting primarily as a BattleMage with weapon enchantments).
A proper wizard should display power and dominance by showing he doesn't NEED armor. He has his spells and the big, brainless lump of muscle holding a shield for that. It's a self confidence and style thing.
At most I'd have a thin breastplate or mail shirt or something hidden under my clothes, I'd certainly not want to "display" full-armor.

"These comfortable robes and my own spells and power are all I need, come at me with your tree branch, peasant."

Honestly, the existence of "battlemages" fundamentally cheapens magic. The moment magic just becomes a grenade launcher, it stops being magical.

[Magick]

I play mages and it would just feel "off" to be clad head to toe in heavy armor (unless fighting primarily as a BattleMage with weapon enchantments).
A proper wizard should display power and dominance by showing he doesn't NEED armor. He has his spells and the big, brainless lump of muscle holding a shield for that. It's a self confidence and style thing.
At most I'd have a thin breastplate or mail shirt or something hidden under my clothes, I'd certainly not want to "display" full-armor.

"These comfortable robes and my own spells and power are all I need, come at me with your tree branch, peasant."

Honestly, the existence of "battlemages" fundamentally cheapens magic. The moment magic just becomes a grenade launcher, it stops being magical.

I agree. True mages should be at the back, launching fireballs or doing something to strategically help the battle.
I'm not against a few fighter types learning an enchantment spell or two, though.

[rusty_shackleford]

That's manly runic magic, don't confuse it

[Norfleet]

True mages should be at the back, launching fireballs

See? This is what I mean by "you are now just a magical grenade launcher". True mages should be offering advice and wisdom to the king, with helpings of cryptic prophecy and mystical wisdom. The moment they just become a portable artillery piece, the magic is lost.

That's manly runic magic, don't confuse it

This is how dwarf magic functions: Dwarves put their magic in a weapon and beat someone with it.

[Magick]

True mages should be at the back, launching fireballs

See? This is what I mean by "you are now just a magical grenade launcher". True mages should be offering advice and wisdom to the king, with helpings of cryptic prophecy and mystical wisdom. The moment they just become a portable artillery piece, the magic is lost.

I was talking about combat, not everyday living lol.

[Norfleet]

I was talking about combat, not everyday living lol.

You do those things in combat, too. Like I said: once your wizard is a fancy grenade launcher, the magic is lost. Curse the enemy army with withered dinguses or something magical like that.

[Magick]

I was talking about combat, not everyday living lol.

You do those things in combat, too. Like I said: once your wizard is a fancy grenade launcher, the magic is lost. Curse the enemy army with withered dinguses or something magical like that.

Indeed, the wizard should have a full array of spells, and use whatever the situation calls for in creative ways.
One thing I liked in WoW was that if I wanted to use Arcane missiles or Frostbolt as a Fire Mage, I COULD. If I wanted to use a downgraded spell (lower mana / casttime) I COULD. (Until they changed it to "streamline". Fuckers!).

Playing as a warrior felt so boring, when I tried it after that. It was all the same thing.

Are there many games with specialised buff / enhancement mages nowadays? (For the party).

[Norfleet]

Are there many games with specialised buff / enhancement mages nowadays? (For the party).

Some, but the thing about a wizard that can cast Mass Dingus Withering (has no actual mechanical combat effect) that simply killing them will not remove is that it's MAGICAL, in ways that casting fireballs and lightning bolts ISN'T. If you throw fireballs into an enemy army, you're little more than a portable catapult. Threatening to curse them with withered dinguses if they oppose you, on the other hand, has impact in ways a magical catapult doesn't, even though it technically has no mechanical combat effect, because who the hell in the enemy army wants to have a withered dingus forever?

[Magick]

Are there many games with specialised buff / enhancement mages nowadays? (For the party).

Some, but the thing about a wizard that can cast Mass Dingus Withering (has no actual mechanical combat effect) that simply killing them will not remove is that it's MAGICAL, in ways that casting fireballs and lightning bolts ISN'T. If you throw fireballs into an enemy army, you're little more than a portable catapult. Threatening to curse them with withered dinguses if they oppose you, on the other hand, has impact in ways a magical catapult doesn't, even though it technically has no mechanical combat effect, because who the hell in the enemy army wants to have a withered dingus forever?

lol true, but wouldn't that be a "warlock"? (Curse/debuff mage).

[Norfleet]

lol true, but wouldn't that be a "warlock"? (Curse/debuff mage).

The distinction only comes into being when you're offered the option to throw fireballs at all. Being a grenade launcher is not really a traditional offering of wizardry: Even as far as Lord of the Rings, it's largely absent.

Of course, when you're offered such options, everyone would naturally take it: It's immediately and mechanically impactful. But this means magic is necessarily watered down to accomodate an action economy that doesn't see you sitting there with the reload times of an actual artillery piece, even.

[TKVNC]

lol true, but wouldn't that be a "warlock"? (Curse/debuff mage).

The distinction only comes into being when you're offered the option to throw fireballs at all. Being a grenade launcher is not really a traditional offering of wizardry: Even as far as Lord of the Rings, it's largely absent.

Of course, when you're offered such options, everyone would naturally take it: It's immediately and mechanically impactful. But this means magic is necessarily watered down to accomodate an action economy that doesn't see you sitting there with the reload times of an actual artillery piece, even.

The problem is, wizards necessarilly make large battles unbelievable. They also, much like cannons in our real world, make most fortifications ultimately pointless; these two things are a somewhat staple of medieval / medieval-adjacent fantasy.

Very few, if any, settings adequately resolve this issue. Scarcity is, arguably, the only viable way to square this, though depending on potency, mages are effectively-omnipotent for all practical purposes.

[rusty_shackleford]

just send a legion of rogues to sneak past the main combat and backstab the wizards, ezpz

[DemoGraph]

Thief existing implies other classes can't be stealthy

Fighters existing implies other classes can't be bums!

I play mages and it would just feel "off" to be clad head to toe in heavy armor (unless fighting primarily as a BattleMage with weapon enchantments).
A proper wizard should display power and dominance by showing he doesn't NEED armor. He has his spells and the big, brainless lump of muscle holding a shield for that. It's a self confidence and style thing.
At most I'd have a thin breastplate or mail shirt or something hidden under my clothes, I'd certainly not want to "display" full-armor.

"These comfortable robes and my own spells and power are all I need, come at me with your tree branch, peasant."

Honestly, the existence of "battlemages" fundamentally cheapens magic. The moment magic just becomes a grenade launcher, it stops being magical.

Yall are degrading D&D and derivatives so much, it's not fun. Melee jocks should have an illusion of having the same utility as brainiacs. For balance!

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Why can't you be allowed to wear robes over armor?

[DemoGraph]

Why can't you be allowed to wear robes over armor?

You can. It's called a surcoat.
"Casters can't wear armor" is another D&D attempt to make class system not suck.

[Maledict]

Armor should be treated logically. Heavy armor slows you down and limits your mobility. If you jump around and travel a lot, it doesn't make sense. You can't just put it on for the battle, because you'd still haul it around. You'll drown with it on. If you traverse through a heated or very cool area, the temperature will bother you more.

In mythology, fairies are practically turbo-allergic to metal. If settings made magic come from fairies and be equally allergic to metal, then you have a limiter. Hells, mages could potentially be very weak to getting caught in metal nets or being put into metal cuffs limiting their access to magic. You could have a real boundary while keeping things working.

By extension, the heavy armor would become restricted to adversaries only, making it make more sense why they're tankier than your party.

But no one designs systems anymore. They just want to give people quick gratification. That's why **** sucks.

You could even have enchanted items existing, but make it lore-wise that when they come in contact with a mage, they start sucking out their own magic, hence why they're restricted to non-mages only.