Allowed and Disallowed Character Concepts

[Grakor456]

Okay, so with the removal of that news post a while back, I never did follow up on it. Now I can hopefully correct that problem.

Note that I am not setting down rules here. This is my blog where I put forth my thoughts and gather feedback for those thoughts. Please don't take anything I say here as "This is the way that things are going to be." Anything can be subject to change.

There's a few reasons I don't like lists of "allowed" and "disallowed" concepts, especially with related to the old prestige system...it encourages the use of titles that are old artifacts. The d20 is good for many things, but drawing class lore is not one of them, and there's several reasons for this. The most important to consider is that a lot of the d20 lore was made to fit d20 mechanics, and thus attempting to draw WoW lore from the d20 to use on CotH can lead to some less than ideal situations. It doesn't help that the power scale of the d20 ends up being very different from the power scale that we use here.

There is also the point to make that much of the d20's mechanics and abilities were put in to mimic the system that it was based on: Dungeons and Dragons. Paladins in the d20 were basically D&D paladins. Warriors were D&D fighters. Runemasters were monks with an odd magic system. Rogues were D&D...well, rogues. This is also true for a number of the prestige classes. For example, the Shadow Ascendant has many abilities that function identically to the D&D Shadow Dancer. It's very difficult for me to accept d20 classes as canon with these facts in front of me.

For that reason, we don't encourage people to use d20 prestiges. Note that in some ways we don't expressly *discourage* it either. Some parts of the d20 can be great for drawing inspiration from...so long as you know what's good to take and what isn't. Because that is not an easy distinction to make, it seems prudent to have CotH take an official stance of not addressing the d20 at all any more than is necessary and instead focus on characters as individuals. If someone makes a good, balanced character concept that's based on a d20 idea, that's fine. If there's something that we don't like about it, it can be addressed individually.

That announcement that was put up and taken down was mostly to address certain concepts we simply don't want to see. One of the things that we wanted to see die in a fire was the "X, BUT MORE!" classes. Archmage, High Divinist, Archdruid, etc. etc. This ended up extending also to some classes that, for the final iteration of the prestige system, was literally pulled from the air and their abilities pulled from our collective backsides. In particular, Tormentor and Whisper Blade, which weren't especially thought of fondly by a good number of the GMs anyway. Because those are completely non-canon ideas, we wanted to stamp those out.

So the question becomes, can we define what is and is not allowable without making a list of old prestiges? I would prefer this manner if it is possible.

As an aside, there's one thing that I want to see stomped on: Runemasters. I know, I know. I was right up there with the rest of you and fanboyed over the concept. However, there's a few problems now. The first is that, with the coming of the Monk in MoP, it's now pretty much certain that RM will never be made canon. Second, these guys are becoming more common than I think most of us would like. Now, I don't have a problem with the use of runes; after all, that's essentially the Inscriptionist profession anyway. Runes are no longer associated with bare-knuckle fighting, and I'd like to think of a way of making that lack of association more clear.

Thoughts?

[Harmonic]

I was agreeing... till the runemaster part. How exactly does the monk negate the existance of Runemasters? Isn't one of the skill trees... well, runemaster? I would think it'd be mostly the same thing, unless you're going to adopt the "Wait and see" method for how blizzard handles that stuff, then I can understand the idea of removing runemaster.

Even though it's pretty discouraging. Does that mean too that brewmaster is something we won't be able to do on CoTH?

Edit: I ask this, because the only firm "we probably won't allow this" was for runemaster.

Edit 2: What does this mean for people that have been trying to work towards runemaster?

[Grakor456]

How exactly does the monk negate the existance of Runemasters? Isn't one of the skill trees... well, runemaster?

The three talent trees for Monks in MoP are Brewmaster, Mistweaver, and Windwalker. They have absolutely nothing to do with runes near as I can tell, and instead their abilities seem fueled by mysticism and the concept of 'chi.'

They're essentially two separate concepts for addressing the same archetype, but how their abilities work are completely different.

[Harmonic]

I see. However, that leads to another question... why exactly does it need to be stomped on then? It seems like it could be argued it's another "x, but stronger" class, but to me it comes off as any other class variant that's been allowed here, like Necromancer or Demon Hunter.

Besides the amount of people trying out for that type of character, why specifically this class? It could be argued that MOST of these variant aren't exactly cannon, especially things like the Dragonguys, whose names I forget right off hand.

[Aadora]

I think there is a little bit of "Non-canon" ideas and classes who have been, as you stated, "pulled from the air and their abilities pulled from our collective backsides." Or things on CotH that are taking one idea and completely altering it to match another, when there is nothing to support it could happen.

Certain things aren't allowed and that is common sense. It is stated to people when they read the rules... this isn't a place to play the King of Stormwind or the Archdruid of Hyjal.

And perhaps you could just make a list of what -isn't- allowed without having to make a list of what -is- allowed,. But I wasn't around for this "prestige system" so I guess I can't really know what you're talking about all that well.

[Grakor456]

Besides the amount of people trying out for that type of character, why specifically this class? It could be argued that MOST of these variant aren't exactly cannon, especially things like the Dragonguys, whose names I forget right off hand.

Second, these guys are becoming more common than I think most of us would like. Now, I don't have a problem with the use of runes; after all, that's essentially the Inscriptionist profession anyway. Runes are no longer associated with bare-knuckle fighting, and I'd like to think of a way of making that lack of association more clear.

Seriously, I've had people come up to me and complain about all of the crazy variations of Runemaster that people are making.

The problem is not the use of runes. The problem is that the way that the canon lore addresses runic magic runs counter to how the Runemaster class works. It's not about bare-knuckle fighting persay, it's about augmentation and empowerment. Everything about runes in WoW was sort of rolled up into the DK class and the Inscriptionist profession.

Now, yes, there are other concepts that were decanonized, but none of them are so widespread as the RM right now. Dragonsworn, while not canon, at least have basis in lore: the dragons DO in fact have mortal followers in the world, we see that in WoW.

[flammos200]

What does this mean for people that have been trying to work towards runemaster?

Or that have 'em and have been playing 'em. And last I checked Runemasters appear in the quests in WoW.

[Harmonic]

That's the problem with prestige classes as a whole right now... and why I've been intimidated. Making one seems like you have to surf through loads of things that may or may not be acceptable, and it's hard to say... what's going on.

Really, I'm just interested in why certain things will be allowed, why certain others won't, because all prestige classes at this moment seem to be not supported by Blizz at the moment, aside from the "classes" that you see outside of what's available, like Necromancer. Problem is, those are so downplayed they almost come off as non-hero professions rather than actual classes.

It'd be nice to see what we can and cannot do, since right now there are no -real- guidelines to what is available... and was also why I was asking "Why runemaster?" when it seems like that the arguement could be made that any other class we have available could be stomped out by other classes.

Blademaster could be trumped by warriors, sharpshooter/gunslinger could be trumped by hunter, necromancer by deathknight... so on and so forth.


Edit: And I do see your point, Grakor. However, there have been as Flamm has stated, instances where NPC's have done this. It's just sort of muddled though in my opinion.

I mean, with all this logic, we could also say that Necromancer's can't summon ghouls but can only mend undead. I'm sure there are better examples, but it's really hard with how things are at the moment to peg one thing, like runemaster, and say "People aren't playing this right". I mean, what -is- right by any of these prestige classes?

It seems to target only a few people, as I can only think of one person who has been trying to achieve runemaster.

[Loxmardin]

What we want to do is map out what sorts of concept we'd be alright with and, on the contrary, what we wouldn't let fly. Without using the old prestige classes (or even titles in general, really) as grounds for our arguements since we want to swing away from those titles as much as we can.

It's not so much about what is or isn't "canon" according to the D20/RPG or the WoW in-game lore as it's about what works and what doesn't when applied to the IC universe that we roleplay in. Many of the things in the D20, for instance work when applied ICly, but not in the way the concepts have been portrayed inside the D20. Because the D20 uses a differently spun lore to build their concepts upon than what we have to work with in the IC universe of World of Warcraft.

Many of the titles in the most recent prestige system such as the Tormentor, Whisper Blade and such titles, as well, have never existed. Most of those were made up on the spot in order to balance the system so it was open to more people and their characters. In order to make those classes, we also made up our own pieces of lore to accomodate them. Since the wipe of the Prestige System, though, those classes no longer exist and, as far as the universe is concerned, never has existed in the first place.

... That said, some of their abilities or the concept they were built on can still be recycled and used for something else, just not the "Tormentor" as it used to be, or the "Whisper Blade" as it used to be. Because those titles, as mentioned already, don't exist. There's nothing saying some of the abilities that fell in under their titles, however, can't be available to player characters without having to turn to the titles themselves.

I think I stopped making sense already, but, yeah.

(Also, they're Dragonsworn. There are plenty of In-Game World of Warcraft examples of Dragonsworn to hint that they do exist. How they've been treated since we allowed them, though, is a bit of fanon on our part so to make them balanced and still open that venue for RP. It's a bunch of fun RP to be had, and interesting character development. All the while not going too haywire with the concept.)

... I think the gist of what I wanted to say with this post, though...

Runemasters = Users of runes/sigils
Users of runes/sigils =/= Runemasters

Whisper Blade = Fancy Rogue-like person
Fancy Rogue-like person =/= Whisper Blade

Tormentors = Death Knights with weird abilities
Death Knights with weird abilities =/= Tormentors

I'll gather my thoughts and get back to this when I remember how I wanted to proceed.

[Harmonic]

I don't think that's possible.

I mean, it's like... either you have the list of what's acceptable, or, try to muddle it out like what's been going on. If you have a set list of "this is acceptable" it might be easier, but like you've all said it's almost the same as the previous system. I don't think it's possible to have something that's a mix of both... it's almost too contrary.

[Grakor456]

Or that have 'em and have been playing 'em. And last I checked Runemasters appear in the quests in WoW.

That just raises more questions than it answers. We see one quest with a runemaster, and it's not even of a race that's playable, nor does it tell us what he exactly does in terms of abilities. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that that renders RMs canon, as that's a mighty big leap.

Blademaster could be trumped by warriors, sharpshooter/gunslinger could be trumped by hunter, necromancer by deathknight... so on and so forth.

That's not the same thing at all. Necromancer and DK are separate concepts entirely, they don't do identical things. Blademaster is a type of warrior, as sharpshooters are a type of hunter. In essence, a blademaster IS a warrior, which is why there's no problem with playing one. That's not at all similar to what's going on with RMs, which just have so little conclusive lore surrounding them that you can't make any real judgments on what they're even supposed to be.

[Harmonic]

Couldn't it be said then that a runemaster is a type of monk?

[Loxmardin]

Having strict lists, however, is very limiting. It's basically serving you concepts on a plate and giving you a box to swim in, which isn't what we want to do. I'd personally much rather give a set of guidelines or a check-list for people who design their own Variants.

"If you had to check any two of these boxes, you should probably go back to the drawing board."

Such guidelines could include:

- Stronger than a base class. (Class continuation, the "Arch" prefix, etc.)
- More than one class. (Multi-classing. Nuh huh.)
- Archaic concepts. (Never been tried before? Skip over it or discuss it with the GMs first.)
- NPC abilities.
- Auto-Authority. (Chieftains, Mayors, Lords of places we've never heard of, groups that never existed and such.)
- "But this lore figure..." (Hold it right there.)

This can probably be refined a thousand times, though. I'm just pulling this off the top of my head right now. But, am I making sense to the point that it's clear what I mean?

EDIT: Stop being so fast, you guys. QQ

[Grakor456]

Couldn't it be said then that a runemaster is a type of monk?

No, because they're completely different concepts.

A Blademaster is a type of Warrior because Blademasters fit in the Warrior mold: They take a big weapon and beat something with it until it stops moving. What magical effect Blademaster has is muted compared to the main point of a Blademaster being a Warrior.

RMs use runic magic to augment their bodies so they can punch things. Monks use mysticism and chi to use quasi-magical effects and to fight with supreme knowledge of anatomy. The two are wholly different in their means, even if the rough result (they punch things) is the same. This is unlike a Blademaster, who goes about doing what he does in a largely identical manner to a Warrior.

[Aadora]

Runemasters = Users of runes/sigils
Users of runes/sigils =/= Runemasters

Whisper Blade = Fancy Rogue-like person
Fancy Rogue-like person =/= Whisper Blade

Tormentors = Death Knights with weird abilities
Death Knights with weird abilities =/= Tormentors

You can have a list of what is allowed without attaching titles to such things. Saying "Character's are allowed to use runes in this way or that way" is not the same as saying "Runemaster is a playable class"

Just like you could say "Death knights can use this ability or these abilities." But you aren't saying "Tormentor is a playable class."