Class Variation Discussion

[Grakor456]

At first, I wanted to make a long ramble on my views of how things should be, but I came to realize that I don't think it'd do much good anyway. So, instead, I'm going to do two things. The first is lay out some short and sweet thoughts out of my head, and you can take them for what they're worth.

Thragash going down the path of a Runemaster was rather enlightening to me, in many ways. Seeing all of that happen gave me things to think about, but it also gave me a lot of frustration, which is probably the cause of half of my crankiness on this subject. One thing that always bothered me about the RP that Thragash would find himself in was how his skills were handled in combat RP. I do not exaggerate when I say that, during his duration as a Runemaster (and later a Bone Crusher) he has lost more fist-fights than he has won, generally against people not specializing in fist-fighting like he does. Such is the sense of humor of Lady Luck. My first thought, then, is that it always sucks for a character to supposedly be good at something, and lose to someone who supposedly is only fair at it. Doubly so when it happens consistently, as Lady Luck is as cruel as she is humorous.

I can also honestly say I've lost track of the number of whispers I received that were due to people saying that Runemasters should/should not be able to do X. My second thought is that poorly-defined skill-sets cause nothing but confusion and headaches.

My third thought is that 90% of all drama sparked by RP is sparked by conflict RP in particular.

The recent argument in the variant system thread has given me the a lot to think about. The talk about battle-mages also got me thinking. My fourth thought is that battle-mages are essentially, from a combat perspective, identical to enhancement shaman: the concept is a character that is normally a caster uses their magic to augment their weaponry and defenses to instead become a melee fighter.

My fifth thought is that it is ironic given this that there are more people playing battle-mages than there are enhancement shaman. I do not know, nor understand the reasons for this, aside from possible preferences for racial selection or class background. My sixth thought is that this is rather sad and sort of steals what makes enhancement shaman special as a character concept (at least from a combat perspective,) coming from someone who is personally a fan of the shaman class. My seventh thought is that all of these thoughts could be applied, in one form or another, to the human archer debate.

My eighth, and final, thought is that I find it dismaying that people claim that the base class list is too restrictive and boring, when those base classes haven't even been used to their full potential by many.

Dang it, I told myself I wouldn't go off on a long ramble.

The second thing I want to do is pose questions for the sake of discussion. These questions are not rhetorical, nor am I attempting to be disrespectful with any of them. I honestly want to understand why everyone else feels the way they do, and get a handle for what everyone thinks.

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

Also, feel free to make rambling rants of your own on my list of thoughts, and all.

Edit: Herp-a-durp, I can count. This is why I shouldn't type at four in the morning.

[PvtFrog]

1. About everyone having a level playing field. I'm iffy about this one to be honest. You wouldn't see a mage besting a Death Knight in a one-on-one fist fight without using magic. Same goes for a warrior vs a civilian, most people I would think, expect the warrior to win. Then again, not every warrior is expected to be that perfect knight in shining armor with rippling muscles, and not every mage is weakly and frail. I think it would honestly depend on which character is fighting who. Would a warrior with rippling muscles deserve a roll bonus against a sickly mage? I would think so. Would a warrior who was new to fist fighting deserve a roll bonus against a mage who cared about his physical well being? Not so much.

2. ...To be honest, I have no idea what the question means. Could be me being tired, or it could be the wording. I'll refrain from pulling some random BS about it for now. :P

3. Not a lot, but there are still some that would require it to branch out from base classes. Demon Hunter for one, Spellbreaker I think. Anymore is lost for me right now. I'll probably have to edit this when I wake up again.

4. I...honestly have no idea. I probably should've done this when I was less tired.

[Kirabo]

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

I'd call Undead having greater endurance, along with Death Knights, who'd have higher strength.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

Yes, absolutely. Warriors are the only class with 'shout' abilities OOCly. Why not use those IC?

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

None.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

I doubt there should be a 'line' as you call it, dividing the border of special profile requirement and not. I'd call the custom class (variant) should be explained in the ordinary character profile, along with the ways of achieving such title.

[Psycho]

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

Yes, there should be. But of course, it should all be settled in OOC banter. I find some things to be nigh impossible, not to mention absurd. Bonuses should be kept low, and even none existing at times due to the fact they could provide a spark to an big batch of wood soaked in gun powder and gasoline called human emotions. I think the bonuses should not be kept by classes, but rather in the character itself. To emphasize my point. Thragash is a hulking mass of muscle, a bear who swallows hosues that swallows other bears. On the other end of the spectrum, we have Malack. Malack is a frail old sack of undead bones that is more likely to collapse. Should they enter a fist fight, I think a bonus is required on Thragash's end. But, if Thragash was to fight against his mate Rhozak, which is also rather strong and proficient with his fists, there should be no bonuses, or rather very minor ones. What do you mean this was too long?

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

Warriors have an amazing variety of things to offer, and as Kirabo mentioned, their yells are incredible psychological boosts (Hence the bonuses) But let's not forget, Titan's Grip. That right there is the pinnacle of strength, the manliest weapon holding ever to exist! People seem to forget traits of certain classes at times, but the Warrior stands proud and fierce with a variety of skill, and a very versatile class!

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

Very, very, very rare cases. Runemasters for once, Necromancers, and probably Demon Hunters. Other then that, use your own imagination.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

The branching itself should be what that provides the line in my opinion. You want something that isn't already provided OOCly? (Which is very rare.) Work for it. Jump loops. And make sure to avoid that flaming rhino that's charging your way with a mounted mini-gun attached to every single teeth in his mouth. Also known as power abusing.

As for people ignoring out the enhancement Shaman... I hear that. I get it, you want to be a Gnome that can stab things with a flaming dagger, but sometimes that just doesn't work. It's the idea of trying to find a loop-hole. I'm not aiming for any offense, but I'm rather against it. So it's available on one end and not the other, no big deal. Sometimes, rather then bending the system, bending yourself can lead to a whole lot more interesting results. It's how I fell in love with Tauren and their lore. Again, no offense meant, and I hope it didn't come off that way! Opinions and all.

[Reigen]

You want my incoherent ramblings? Goodie gumdrops! Fair warning, I am not awake but this matters not. Go!

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

Spoiler:

To be perfectly honest, it's not about who's fighting it's about where you hit. Tactics over raw strength. Let us say there is a semi-decent mage with a sword against a warrior. If the mage aims at critical points, such as the back of the knees, elbows and neck where as the warrior just...randomly hacks and slash then I wound find them fairly even. A blow to the chest could hurt, yes, but it's not nearly as debilitating as slicing a tendon in the back of the knee and disabling your opponent. I suppose that's why I like trust fights, because people can play out such things rather than 'herpderp I cut you with paper and critted!'

This could even apply in fist fights. Seasoned veteran punching the weaker priest in random spots. Do I think the more experienced one in physical combat would hurt more? By all means yes, but if strong-guy #197 is just hitting random spots then that's not all to effective. Now the priest, who has no doubt studied anatomy, knows that hitting spot #10 will cause the person to become suddenly winded or even pass out. Tactics over brawn. Such things are normally only played out in trust fights, and let's face it, no one trusts anyone on this server to play 'fair'.

I feel that a bonus might be appropriate in very few cases. If a warrior and mage fight, realistically the bonus damage the mage gets from magic and the warrior from strength would negate each other. Might as well just stick to the normal roll system. If we're trying to say class A is better than B at this, this and this, then we might also take into account that race A has been doing B for X years and is much better than race C at it. [Example. Blood elven mages have been doing magic for years, before humans were even born. Do I believe they should be stronger than a human at magic? Yes.]

Point being if we make roll bonuses for each class, then we have to take race into consideration, then age, then who did what for longer in their profiles. It would just be a mess and best left alone.

Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

Spoiler:

Warriors are brutes. They fly into a blind fury where as most other physical classes need to be cautious. They have such strength that they can pick up swords that requires others two hands to do and wield two of them. They are my definition as a berserker and that is what makes them special to me.

Paladin's do not have the raw being behind them as a warrior does and will not take the same risks. In everyday RP, they act different, they think different, they bring something different to RP compared to other classes. RP isn't all about combat, it isn't all about the bonuses. An awesome character concept would be a paladin that has lost his abilities in the light due to flying into a pure -rage- at others, hacking and slashing away until there is nothing left. The dilemma and story that could come from that makes me drool.

Can other classes bring that to the table? Not really. You have to focus as a mage for spells, you have to focus as a hunter to get the shot, as a rogue to sink the dagger into the right spot. Warriors can rage.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

Spoiler:

Characters that use skills outside of their class might need to brace out a bit. IE: Like a Pyromancer that uses pure fire skills outside of what a mage gets. They would have had to learn it somewhere, these skills weren't taught in mage school #890.

Much as I hate to bring it up, Necromancy. It is a school of arcane and with variants, should be possible.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

Spoiler:

Personally I think it would be a case by case basis. Each variant ought to be discussed with a GM to see if an application is even required. Something that grants several skills outside of the normal class may require one where as some might. A necromancer would require a submission while an frost spec mage using 'path of frost'ish skill wouldn't.

Sorta like how you had to come to a GM about a custom prestige, you should come to one to discuses if what you want to do would need an application.

*rolls over and goes back to sleep*

[Psychyn]

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

Spoiler:

Everyone should be on equal level, because no matter how big or little that bonus is, it'll spark drama up. Once a guideline has been set, people force it onto another and start letting it get to their heads. This has been proven over and over on CotH, and is not me simply being negative. Every other prestige in the past has had it's 'I'm better then you and can force x on you' stance, while the minority of the server may not have done that, it still does not mean it hasn't been done. No bonuses at all, for anything. Realistic? No. Fair and saves drama? Yes.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

Spoiler:

The warrior class in essence, has little special to it. Sure they can wear plate, and use nearly every weapon in-game, but that's the only thing to them. That little specialness, makes them well fitting for pretty much every class in your mind because of that ability to wear any armour, and use nearly any weapon. I've used a lot of 'warrior' classes for just about any other class, I just like parading about in plate I suppose.

But for the sake of RP, warrior has little special, and I like it that way. No fancy abilities like stealth, not being able to fling a frostbolt at someone, just simple close combat fighting which can be played in any situation, in any zone.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

Spoiler:

I'm not sure what talent specs per se have to do with character concepts, as they are in there for game-mechanics. Every talent spec has skills that the simplest of the base class couldn't perform, and as such never bothered with those skills in RP. The warrior skill for example to wield two, 2 hand weapons at the same time is for example an hilarious one, frowned upon in RP as you'd never have the strength to do it unless you possibly had robot arms.

.. But still, it's all game mechanics. Why look at the game mechanics for RP? Just stick to the base classes, their abilities and let people be creative with it. There are a lot of things your character can do, that isn't in the talent tree or on your skill bar. It would be saddening to see people can only find their ways of combat/RP by those silly in-game spells.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

Spoiler:

Simple (For me at least), everything that does not require special skills, morphing or magic from the GMs to to speak is allowed. Everything that does? Forget it, just stirs drama up. What happened to the creativity in RP where you could be a class, without having the skills? As the server always aimed to carry the 'retail' world image, why bother changing this what caused so much drama? Go to the roots, go fully retail like and forget everything that isn't base. Let people RP what they want without the special things and extra powers by solely using their creative minds.

Again, realistic? No. Fair? Yes. Drama free? Most likely.

[Jonoth]

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

I'm not a fan of roll fighting to begin with, and when I do I believe that simpler is better. I find it better to say upon a successful defense/offense that X racial trait came into play to make it happen, and upon being attacked that my opponent found a good way around my natural abilities. But again, I'd rather an epic trust fight, which I think tends to better take such things into account.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

For the answer to this, I'm gonna pull out the oft-cited equivalent in comics: Batman. Batman exists in a league of people who are all variably mutants/aliens with powers way beyond what a normal human can do. Yet Batman is still the most popular/ass-kicking of the group. There was an episode in the Justice League animated series where the villain asks, "What's your superpower?", to which he responds, "An unbreakable will." This to me is the epitome of what makes a warrior. He -knows- he can't make fire, or throw lightning, or teleport, or conjure demons. But he still rushes into the heart of battle like no one can stop him, Titan's Gripping two weapons and possibly Bladestorming the heck out of anything in his path. His iron will, simple as it is, doesn't seem so useless when his opponent that laughed at him seconds ago is getting a mace in his face.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

See answer below.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

If the variant system is used, then profession-based variants (assassins, gladiators, witch doctors, alchemists) or variants that don't go very far beyond the base classes should not require applications. Anything that requires a change to skill sets or may require a custom model altogether (ie Demon Hunters, Undead minions) should require one. Also someone mentioned before about nobles and special profiles, so perhaps any class variant that implies a certain degree of political/social power should be either added to that policy, or all such should be opened up for application.

[Psychyn]

"What's your superpower?", to which he responds, "An unbreakable will."

You just made batman look cool. Guess you got a point for the warrior class that I didn't see. I like!

[Xigo]

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

No. It should be on a character-by-character basis, not class. But if you want your character's abilities to be represented better in a fight, trust it. Luck's a jerk.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

A warrior has the potential to be special. I say potential, because there are a lot of 'warrior-like paladins' lately. I can count the number of paladins I've actually seen roleplayed like paladins, and not just warriors who use the light, on one hand. (Vindicators/Blood Knights don't count there. You guys are awesome.).

They have the potential to be really cool. But everyone just rolls paladins when it clearly doesn't fit the character. I'd love to implement a system where we can take away someone's access to the Light if he's doing things against the paladin's way. Because we'd lose half our paladin population in a month.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

Anything that isn't 'basic'. That's vague, but that's what it is to me.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

Nope. Good luck to those GMs on figuring out a way to do this without making half the server rage over how it's not the way they expected it.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I'd love to implement a system where we can take away someone's access to the Light if he's doing things against the paladin's way.

Yes. I would love.

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

If it's countered out. Like, if someone has a +15 to melee, they should have a -15 to defense, or something.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

I believe being a Warrior has the ability to be a Hybrid, or even just a Juggernaut Berserker person.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

Well, none. As long as you stay away from Prestiges like Demon Hunters and Wardens, which I view as basically their own class, most are able to be fit to Talent trees.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

Whatever has a multitude of custom spells, or just one spell that doesn't really make sense for their class. Take a Pyremaster for example, raising a Skeleton isn't something Shaman would do, so I think they'd fit in an application.

[Psychyn]

They have the potential to be really cool. But everyone just rolls paladins when it clearly doesn't fit the character. I'd love to implement a system where we can take away someone's access to the Light if he's doing things against the paladin's way.

Now that, would actually be neat. However it has a great potential to turn into a flawed system. Who judges the paladin whether his actions are good or bad? Would the power be taken away permanently? Would the paladin have the chance of redeeming itself, or fight the loss of his powers somewhere when it is deemed to be an unjust course of action? And so on.

I like the idea, it just requires a lot of thought. No trial and error system if you catch my drift as that would most likely upset a great bunch of people. And it should be an simple course of action, a possible debuff stating a person can not wield the light. Not an entire change of the paladin's skill set to warrior and what not. (Also for OOC reasons)

Though, I'm getting off topic.. I think.

without making half the server rage over how it's not the way they expected it.

And that's why it simply should all be forgotten. ;> Because this will be the outcome, one way or another.

[aroes]

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

I'd say that warriors and rogues/monk characters probably fall into this in regards to a specific designation of combat type. Runemasters would probably be the best at fist fighting considering they specifically train in it etc. Depends on the character though.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

It does, warrior describes an entire skillset regarding everything from a basic soldier or musketeer(guns and fencing) to a pikeman that fights in a formation. They're also unique in the fact this skillset could/does include monks and cavalry. The warrior class allows you to be alright in all weapons or to be the master of one.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

I'd say the only ones that need to be split off are those that radically change the skillset of a particular class. Dark inscriber for example: They are simple inscribers that cast dark magic with runes instead of channeling arcane, thus avoiding corruption. That isn't weird until you realize that they also have access to the other rune schools and frequently tattoo themselves for quick casting. They are dark runemasters. ladies and gents.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

It might be difficult but it certainly is possible to draw a line, an application would be nice for sorting out the ideas that may just be a bit too out there. That is, of course, under the assumption that we will still be allowed custom stuff.

[JVNemesis]

My third thought is that 90% of all drama sparked by RP is sparked by conflict RP in particular.

Agreed. No one likes to lose, but everyone takes their hits with varying levels of grace. Mostly why I try to only get in IC fights with people I trust OOC. That also makes the issue of character competency bonuses a moot point, because we always trust fight and play it realistically.

My ninth, and final, thought is that I find it dismaying that people claim that the base class list is too restrictive and boring, when those base classes haven't even been used to their full potential by many.

I think I see what you mean here, but I also see where those people are coming from. As a hunter you can spec Marksmanship and basically become a Dead Shot, or maybe Beast Mastery and become exactly that, a Beastmaster. If that's what you meant by potential, then we're on the same wavelength. I think what the people calling it restrictive are trying to convey is that you can't accurately portray some of the more 'out there' options with the base list. Like demon hunter, for example, or Lightslayer, or Warden, off the top of my head. That's my interpretation, anyway.
Maybe it's that some people dismiss the talent trees out of hand as an OOC mechanic that has no impact on RP, which I disagree with. I definitely use my talent choices to represent my character's abilities.
Example: My hunter, Anaiya. She's a former ranger, fought in the wars, blah blah blah. She's a great shot, being a Silvermoon ranger and by virtue of being a hunter, but she doesn't limit herself solely to marksmanship. She's just as comfortable in melee as perched on a hill somewhere, so I specced her into Survival. She's just that, a survivor; she's off by herself more often than not, relying on her own skills to keep herself alive. Therefore, I put points into all those 'Survival Instincts', 'Survivalist', 'Lightning Reflexes', etc. To demonstrate her increased melee potential, I put points in Savage Strikes, Deflection, Counterattack...You get the picture.
That's how I do it, anyway. Opinion disclaimer goes here.

Dang it, I told myself I wouldn't go off on a long ramble.

Funny how that happens, isn't it? Look what happened just above.

Now, on to what I originally intended to write about...

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

I feel they should, but I don't see any good way to implement it. Life, love, and Warcraft aren't fair, but CotH tries to be. Not a knock against it; fairness and balance in a game world is a good thing, but not all characters are created equal. In trust fights it's easy to manage things like this, but...again, there's the niggling issue of there needing to be trust to have such a fight.
Helpful, that was.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

Sponges.
No, seriously. Anyone who trains enough to fight in full plate and wield huge weapons like warriors do is going to be a tough SOB. It would only take a few solid, damaging hits to down my blood elf hunter. Not so with a warrior, in my opinion. They soak up damage like the tanks they are. My hunter relies on just not being there when an attack lays, via ducks, dodges, and redirecting incoming attacks. Warriors can just absorb the hit and throw a better one right back at you.
They lack finesse, as a general rule, perhaps, but they make up for their lack of bows/magic/speed by being a powerhouse.
That's how I see it. For fighting, anyway. If you meant RP purposes beyond combat, then...depends on the character, really.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

Eh. Necromancers, I suppose? Though I could see someone rolling a cloth-wearing death knight and using the Unholy tree's spells, while not actually being a death knight IC. Beyond that, nothing really comes to mind.
Any kind of 'concept' that reaches beyond the capabilities of the base classes seems like it should be a special profile or something anyway. Can't think of an example of such a thing, though.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

I was actually thinking a bit about this yesterday. You could take a leaf out of the prestige title's book.
Before anyone jumps down my throat, hear me out. I mean that in the way that people posted their prestige threads in the prestige section, and were largely left to themselves. The threads were reviewed by GMs occasionally, and said GMs would step in if something was ridiculous or otherwise out of place. Beyond that, people could do whatever they liked. That's kind of what I propose for the variant system. A subforum where people can post their changes for all to see, and if anything was WTF-over the top, it could be debated/overruled by the GM team. Similar to the prestige application, really.
Thread title: Character name (base class)-> (variant class name)
The post would contain a list of strengths and accompanying weaknesses (not necessarily balancing weaknesses, though; just ones that would make sense. See above fairness post).
Something like that, perhaps. Variant class name is only there because I like naming things, and should probably be dropped.

You said something about accidental rants, Grakor?

[Ural]

I think I'll just post what comes to my mind before I read others' replies.

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these? Only if they have a weakness to balance it. I.E. if you're a fist fighter then you might not have the best ranged skills.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.") Not sure what you're asking here, but I'll try anyway! The have cool skills like shield slam, revenge, sunder armor, devastate, concussion blow, disarm, shield wall, spell deflection, shield bash and taunt. In short, warriors are highly adaptive combatants ready for anything!

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes? I'm not really good at being creative, but there seems to be a gap between Warlock and Death Knight for Necromancing. Either you summon demons or are the whole plate-wearing war machine, with a ghoul.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this? Not sure where you're exactly referring to. I don't think you can really draw a clear line. If people want to go outside of the classes/talents then it will most likely have to be a case-by-case basis. Perhaps included when they write their profile.

[Grakor456]

Since there's been some question on #2, I'll clarify for a bit...

Questions 1 and 2 use specific examples to discuss a greater idea: should classes get roll bonuses or benefits in situations that play to their classes? #1 could have just as easily asked "Do you feel that certain classes should get bonuses in archery competitions?" as a random example.

Which is a question that has at least two lines of thought that follow. My own was "Yes, a (combat) situation that plays into the strengths of a particular character should result in that character winning, or at least being put in a stronger position than others." Warriors and rogues are, by their definitions, masters of non-magic melee combat. Hunters are masters of archery. Etc. etc. In what way (aside from skill level differences, I'm not looking at situations where one person is a novice) is it fair to the representation of those characters that someone *not* of that specialty can beat them in their area of chosen expertise?

However, when I spoke to Kretol last, he pointed out the other viewpoint: if only warriors and rogues are good in such events, would that not limit the number and type of people that could participate in such events? In short, do you go for something that is fair to allow maximum participation, or do you go for something that is fair to the abilities of certain characters?

#2 is then building off of what typically happens in such cases as it stands in CotH, where everyone is currently put on an even playing field in situations that would normally favor one class or another. As warriors don't, usually, get roll bonuses in situations that would otherwise favor them, we end up with situations where they frequently lose to paladins and hunters, among others, in raw melee fights. With this noted, is there anything that actually makes warriors worthwhile then? What is their strength?

Hopefully that explains things better.