Possibilities and Variants

[Jaella]

I vote for variant version.

Since I find writing a story unattractive where as getting the RP oppertunities and a few extra sparkles on an spell. (I was never a huge fan of the supposed roll bonuses ever.)

I also favour trust RP over rolls. Since letting your life be let on by a number vs number just kills it for me. If I want to do such, I can go to Cellarkeeper John for that. But I dislike the idea of some people abusing the trust to their advantage. So far when I fought with trust, everything went fine. You have weaknesses and strong points. Sure, you have the risk of maybe getting badly injures. But what's the deal, you'll live the day.

[Delta]

Sorry, I was being unclear, there.

However, if I say "you can play a human archer" I might as well say "you can play a night elven warlock" or "you can play a tauren rogue" or any other impossible race/class combination.

By 'specialise', I was referring to the way people circumvent class restrictions by rolling a warrior and using a bow to work around not the lack of human hunters.

What I was asking, in actuality, is whether or not this is a firm word on if things like that are outright against policy? Will it fit into the variant system, or be roll-able in the freeform solution, supposing CotH adopts that?

If a human warrior became quite (in)famous in CotH for winning fights, roll or otherwise, with just a bow, is that something their player could expect to be called out on?

To clarify, this isn't something I have ever done, nor do I intend to do it. I have a firm grasp of where my characters' weaknesses lie, and I do take those into full consideration in a combat situation.

[Rigley]

[quote='Delta' pid='200476' dateline='1314210702']
Sorry, I was being unclear, there.

If a human warrior became quite (in)famous in CotH for winning fights, roll or otherwise, with just a bow, is that something their player could expect to be called out on?

If this were the case I know I'd be in trouble, heh. I have a few gnomes who are warriors mostly using guns, and Rigley himself prefers shooting (bullets or tinkerstuff) at things to actually engaging in combat.

...Then again, I don't really claim for him to be proficient in those. Though I do so for some gnomes as physical combat is not preferable to someone of a smaller stature (see: Jovana)

[Grakor456]

By 'specialise', I was referring to the way people circumvent class restrictions by rolling a warrior and using a bow to work around not the lack of human hunters.

What I was asking, in actuality, is whether or not this is a firm word on if things like that are outright against policy? Will it fit into the variant system, or be roll-able in the freeform solution, supposing CotH adopts that?

If a human warrior became quite (in)famous in CotH for winning fights, roll or otherwise, with just a bow, is that something their player could expect to be called out on?

To clarify, this isn't something I have ever done, nor do I intend to do it. I have a firm grasp of where my characters' weaknesses lie, and I do take those into full consideration in a combat situation.

At the risk of incurring Rigley's wrath...

Circumvention of disallowed race/class combinations is against policy, yes. Rolling a human warrior to be an archer is, to me, no different than rolling an orc warlock and pretending to be a mage, as a random example. We don't let you to the latter, so we shouldn't let you do the former.

The variant system, or the free-form RP if we don't put forth a system, will not allow this either, as there is a difference between creating a variation or customization of a class, than switching class entirely. Again, the Variant system is not designed to allow full skill-set swaps, so "I'm a warrior that specializes in the bow" is counter to what it's set up to do.

However, it would allow a certain degree of hybrid...ness. For example, a warrior that has increased skill with the bow, at the cost of not being able to wear plate. He still wouldn't be at hunter-level of skill, but he could be more adept at using the bow than most warriors and any non-hunter.

In short, I don't want to allow any system that steals a class's thunder.

[aroes]

The logic circuits I recently had installed in my brain have shorted out, Grak. I really don't and don't think I'll -ever- see how a human archer is the same thing as an orc warlock pretending to be a mage. So long as the person does not use odd skills like arcane shot and starts taming pets, blending into the shadows and whatnot...I see no reason that a human could not use a bow as his primary means of combat and be good with it.

I do hope I'm missing something here in which case please ignore this post. If I'm not...then what about humans using guns/being gunsmiths?

[Xigo]

Impossible. Humans can not be hunters, therefore they can not efficiently wield a gun. Though I'm sure they could craft guns. After all, blacksmithing is an option.

Same with gnomes.

Dwarves got lucky though.

[Kaghuros]

The logic circuits I recently had installed in my brain have shorted out, Grak. I really don't and don't think I'll -ever- see how a human archer is the same thing as an orc warlock pretending to be a mage. So long as the person does not use odd skills like arcane shot and starts taming pets, blending into the shadows and whatnot...I see no reason that a human could not use a bow as his primary means of combat and be good with it.

I do hope I'm missing something here in which case please ignore this post. If I'm not...then what about humans using guns/being gunsmiths?

This.

Why does a system that supposedly allows us to make more and varied characters restrict our imaginations so much more violently than now? I'm not talking about hyper-magical demon hunters, I'm talking about Joe Soldier learning how to use a bow. We're already playing pretend here, why not let us pretend more? Does this interpretation not also imply that we can't play civilians anymore because civilian isn't a base class and we can only roll heroes?

[aroes]

An addendum to my previous post. /points at just about every army for the past 2500 years and the fact archers were essential and were used right up until a reliable musket was made.

[Xigo]

To delve into this further.

- All Blood Elves who wear plate must be paladins. There are no warriors.

- Night Elves may not have priestesses that use bows.

- Forsaken may not be proficient with ranged weaponry.

- Humans may not be proficient with ranged weaponry.

- Tauren may not be proficient with daggers.

- Gnomes may not be proficient with ranged weaponry.

- Draenei may not be proficient with daggers.

Come Cataclysm, the following races suddenly learn how to do things though.

- Dwarves finally learn of the arcane, and conversely the fel magics. Oh, some can finally become shaman, though this is explain with 'it's new to them' instead of 'we just didn't have the class'.

- Gnomes can finally use the light. But, sorry, still can't use ranged weapons proficiently.

- Humans, unlike the midgets, learn how to hold a rifle straight!

- Blood Elves discover that you don't have to be a paladin to wear plate armor, or use a shield. EDIT: They also learn how to get angry.

- Orcs finally discover the arcane.

- Trolls, after having mages for so long, finally can go down the darker warlock path! Also, druids.

- Tauren get paladins and priests. Finally, they can use staffs efficiently! And wear cloth!

- Undead learn how to fire ranged weapon proficiently.

[Grakor456]

The logic circuits I recently had installed in my brain have shorted out, Grak. I really don't and don't think I'll -ever- see how a human archer is the same thing as an orc warlock pretending to be a mage. So long as the person does not use odd skills like arcane shot and starts taming pets, blending into the shadows and whatnot...I see no reason that a human could not use a bow as his primary means of combat and be good with it.

I do hope I'm missing something here in which case please ignore this post. If I'm not...then what about humans using guns/being gunsmiths?

It's the exact same thing, so I'm not sure how you can NOT see it that way.

I'm a "warrior" that specializes in the use of archery. I am pretending to be a hunter.

I'm a "warlock" that specializes in using ice magic. I am pretending to be a mage.

In short, you're playing the wrong class.

The idea, essentially, is to not allow one class to steal another class's thunder. If someone can be an expert archer like a hunter, why play a hunter? If someone can be an expert physical fighter without magic like a warrior, why play a warrior? So on and so forth.

What stops humans from being specialists with a bow? Class restrictions. That was put in by Blizz, not me. Humans get hunters with Cata, I fail to see why you can't wait until then...just like I would have to wait to have an orcish mage.

Why does a system that supposedly allows us to make more and varied characters restrict our imaginations so much more violently than now? I'm not talking about hyper-magical demon hunters, I'm talking about Joe Soldier learning how to use a bow. We're already playing pretend here, why not let us pretend more? Does this interpretation not also imply that we can't play civilians anymore because civilian isn't a base class and we can only roll heroes?

You are incorrect that this is a change based on the new system. In truth, this has always been the case, it's just that some characters got away with it because I didn't personally catch them.

Also, no. Being *worse* than your class is never something restricted. I'm never going to tell someone that they can't play a civilian if they really, really want to. What would the point of that be?

[aroes]

I...what am I reading.jpg

Why play a hunter? They can tame pets, are adept at techniques of tracking and laying traps. Honestly I can't take Blizzard's pants on head silly class per race restrictions seriously. Those were made so that each faction had an equal number of races that could be any particular class. All that cataclysm did was make it so that it made a bit more sense.

Forget for just a minute Blizzard's class restrictions, is there a logical reason that a human can't be a hunter?

[Xigo]

Well. Concerning the actual class change to 'hunter'.

Realistically? No, no reason.

In-practice? Class changes are a long and annoying process to go through, often buglicious. Also, if we allow humans to be hunters, then we would have to be fair and let every other class happen.

[Psychyn]

I think I'll have to agree with Khag and Aroes here. I don't see the problem with an human archer, as the bow is commonly found and used. Would he ever have the skill like a night elven huntress? I really doubt it, as a human perhaps trains three years to shoot the bow, while night elves perhaps train three hundred.

I also remember a time where this was acceptable, and I've seen human 'hunters' before, I even had one myself. Jaide, a former noble-lady who tracked, hunted beasts and skinned them for a living after running away from home. Her profile was accepted and I even called her a human hunter.

.. If we are going to stick to solely the base classes of WoW, you could remove the advanced titles entirely and disallow anything that isn't a base class. You'd solely have warriors, rogues, mages, paladins, warlocks, hunters priests, druids and shamans.. And that's it. What happened to the cook? The archer? The bard? The guide? The archaeologist? Or how about a brawler? A merchant? The peasant? The farmer? and so on.

None of those are base classes, and some a mixture of two but those seemed to be fine earlier. A merchant could be as charismatic and quick handed as a rogue, while being a warrior class. A person that pickpockets and steals, to sell his goods while wearing plate armour to protect himself. It's just an example, but it would be disallowed simply because he had branched his skills out.

What happened to open creativity, mix and matching to RP in this setting where a lot of things are more common then one might realize. Really, would you expect the merchant to solely wear leather (Because of the rogue base class ; leather restriction) or to lose his ability to steal (Because of the warrior base class ; no pick pocket)? With Orc's running about, dragons flying above your head and demons cracking open fel portals under your feet?..

.. I'd adjust myself and wear something more protective in that world. Especially when being the fishy merchant I'd be. I'm not saying you'd be any good pickpocketing while wearing plate, but not being able wear plate at all ever to do so just because it isn't in the base class seems a tad.. eerie? I'm not sure what the right word is for it. ^^

All I want is ; Remove bonuses of any 'prestige' or 'special' 'unique' 'custom' character or however you want to call it. Get rid of a system that makes an implication to people that the pixels in-game make them so much more elite and unique (And that all those hours of writing and trying to achieve something, make them better then anyone else in the community), and allow for the creativity to branch out in a logical and reasonable manner. Allow people the freedom to RP what they want, without having powers of others or factions, and without any specialness to it at all.

Basically, go retail style but just a bit less. Deny the self-proclaimed Marshals, but accept the military officer stationed on a nearby ship with a crew of 10 who accepts orders and missions from the king.

Not sure if I worded that example right, but.. There's a line between freedom of RP, and going insane with RP. Creativity, is what matters. Not the powers, not the abilities and all the visual-ness. Just get rid of all that because it so far, has only gotten too far into people their heads. With one walking on the clouds, three others are irritated and wreaking grief, and so on. Make things equal for everyone.

.. However, I'm not entirely sure if I'm happy with this post so I might edit or delete it entirely later. I have the feeling I missed something, just not sure what.

[Grakor456]

I...what am I reading.jpg

Why play a hunter? They can tame pets, are adept at techniques of tracking and laying traps. Honestly I can't take Blizzard's pants on head silly class per race restrictions seriously. Those were made so that each faction had an equal number of races that could be any particular class. All that cataclysm did was make it so that it made a bit more sense.

Forget for just a minute Blizzard's class restrictions, is there a logical reason that a human can't be a hunter?

Answer your question with a question: is there a logical reason an orc can't be a mage?

They exist in lore, in both cases. The excuse, I would assume, is that they don't exist in large enough numbers to be a viable race/class combination for players.

This is then a matter of fairness. If I say "you can play a human hunter", then I might as well say "you can play an orc mage." Both are Cataclysm race/class combinations. Both have current lore for them. Why do I then not open all of them up? Well, there's a very good reason in at least one case: tauren paladins don't exist until Cata because the Sunwalker order doesn't get made until then.

So, in a choice between allowing all or none, I would rather have none, for the sake of consistency and fairness.

Does that mean humans can't wield ranged weapons? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you can't pretend to be a hunter and be an expert archer, because that's against the class that you chose when you rolled the character.

[aroes]

Out of the very last line of your post, Grak. If I'm an expert archer but not a hunter is that okay? And what of the use of guns?