Removing one class and one race from 2nd edition...

[Golanthius]

I have decided to eliminate the Bard class and the Gnome race from my game... It has been my experience that nobody wants to play either of these. In the 15 or so years I have been a DM, there has never been a Bard and there has only been one Gnome ever played, therefore they have been eliminated.

Any comments would be appreciated.
Thx

[avisarr]

I agree!

You know, that's exactly why I created the Grum in Khoras. I never really liked gnomes and there wasn't a whole lot of difference between gnomes and halflings, in my opinion. And I find Krynn gnomes irritating in the extreme. So, I sort of took all the short races (halflings, gnomes, kender and others) and mashed them all together into a single race... the Grum. It simplifies things and, frankly, I like it that way. Dwarves I kept separate because they've got enough differences and are just plain fun.

I agree with the bard too. I know there are people out there that love the bard, but I personally hate that class. Historical bards were scholars, poets, musicians and men of culture. But TSR and WotC just HAD to make the bard a character class and had to give him some kind of abilities that would put him on par with the other races. Just so that the average bard wouldn't get his ass kicked in battle, the game companies loaded him up with all kinds of special abilities, magical musical feats and such ad nasuem. I hate seeing them twist a character concept around just to fit into their insane class system.

Anyway, that's all. Just wanted to say that I agree. I don't use gnomes in Khoras. And any time you see a bard in Khoras, it'll be a more mundane version - a simple poet or scholar or musician. But NO magical ability whatsoever unless he's also studying magic on the side and that'll be built into his character description. This is just another example of why I think D&D should be a skill based game and not a class based game. But I'm sure everyone is sick of hearing me say that. So, I'll just step off my soapbox and shut up now.

Coincidentally, I have never seen a bard played either. I hadn't really realized it, but in all my years of gaming, I can't recall any of my players actually playing that class.

[tanis]

haha bards are kind of pointless to me also, but i like the way you did that. as Gallagher would say, "It has sstyyylllee." but i do have to say that i kind of forget that gnomes are even in D&D truth be told. and besides wtf are they even good for? but i did like kender, even if just Tasslehof from the dragonlance books. anyways, only other thing is one of the things i admire most about you, david, is your expertise and knowledge and your common sense when it comes to D&D. haha maybe you should start The Coalition To Free Role-players From Wizards of the Coast

[avisarr]

I, unfortunately, have very little influence over Wizards of the Coast. I still have a couple of friends who work there, and I get free gaming books from them, but that's about it. Incidentally, one friend just got back from a trip and says he has fourth edition books for me. Which is cool. Thanks Henry! I haven't seen fourth edition yet, but he described it. He says they've simplified the game so combat doesn't take forever(excellent!), but they still have the class system. (Oh well, can't win them all). He also said they modified the spell system. That could be good or bad, but I'm very curious. Can't wait to see what they've done to magic.

I'll just continue to write up "house rules" for my players to fill in the gaps and correct the areas where I think WotC has screwed up. House rules are a great thing. It's one of the things I love about gaming is that we, as players, can modify the game as much as we like to make it the game we want. No game system can please everyone which is why every group and DM should tweak it to get it just right for them.

But most importantly, I'll just continue to tinker around with my own little gaming world. I can't control WotC but at least I can craft my own world!   

[tanis]

true. and 4th edition??? sweeeet. but seriously David don't be so modest. you may not have much direct influence over WoTC, but you've at least given me the opportunity to get into D&D without getting trapped by the rules. and you've given me a great perspective on the best of what rpg gaming can be. and that's one of the other great things about Khoras. it's a chance to see what gaming really can be, how immense and imaginative and rebellious even lol. but i do have to say i don't know a lot of rpg gamers in person, but those i do know did just about everything by the book, except my friends did seem a little too obsessed with the brothels and bars lmao.

[Golanthius]

Having played 2E to death and can't get my players to even consider 3.5, I'm adding three classes from 1E back into the game as 2E classes. They are the Barbarian, Monk, and Assassin. I also want to add a new class, but I don't know what to call it. I have seen a "Priest/Mage" mentioned in Khoras a few times, I want a class that has access to certain priest spheres and also certain schools of magic.

Any thoughts on this and if so, what would you call it? Also, what parameters would you put on this class?

Thanks

EDIT
I'm thinking of calling the new class "Mage/Diviner." I'm going to try and match up two or three schools of magic and two or three spheres of influence. I will put them in groups and let players pick a group.

Do you see any potential problems with this?

[avisarr]

I see no problems with that. It should work fine. Depending on what aspects of the priest and mage you blend together, you could come up with some very interesting characters.

[Spence]

Sorry to cast a little necromancy and raise an old thread...but i wanted to add my two cents.

The generic DnD Bard is, in my opinion, redundant.  However, i typically throw a little spin on any bard i do play.  First level, yeah i'll go bard, second level, i'll go Barbarian, third level Bard, fourth level barbarian, then after that its straight bard.  I call this my Skald, a warrior from a tribe able to spur his fellow tribemates into battle and whip them into a frenzy like no tomorrow.  The spells i take are always there to augment physical combat, and a little healing.  I play the character as a scholar (of sorts!) from the tribe he belongs to, but hes very much a warrior first and foremost.  Later on using a mithril breastplate and mithril buckler i end up in pretty good shape for combat. 

But, i never have, and never will play a bard straight through.  They just dont seem fitting to me.

[Golanthius]

Wouldn't you know, we had a new player join the group and when she found out we were playing 2E, the first thing she said was "Cool, I want to play a Bard." I just sat behind my DM screen and shook my head in disbelief. Of course, I let her create a bard because I can't think of a good reason not to.

I finally have a full group of six players and I am reviewing the rule set for RuneQuest for our play-test. I'll keep you all updated on how it goes.