Just wondering, I'm accepted?

Is it too late to voice interest?

How many characters can we have?

Two characters.

@Juka Gearsworth
Yes, but I hope you'll revisit and add to the History as I post information about the nations

@Prince Of Seraphs
I was actually planning to do some parts of this. In the weapons section, I was going to detail all the different sorts of weapons that fit into the different categories. I was also going to make it so that those who exclusively wield staves can still hit with them, but just aren't very proficient at doing so and therefore rely more on fighter classes to protect them.

The classes have certain rules to them, but they're more guidelines than restrictions.

@TentacleLord
It is not too late, but if you do, I certainly hope you'll pay this RP closer attention than you did the last one we shared. Vanishing without saying anything leaves a particularly sour taste in my mouth.

All right, I'll add it as you write =) Also can I post my character in the Char section?

All right, I'll add it as you write =) Also can I post my character in the Char section?

Yep.

In my opinion though, removing the the class restrictions, removes part of the Fire Emblem from this Fire Emblem role play.

Doing that would take a significant step to being your run of the mill, medieval fantasy role play. Something that is a dime a dozen on this website to begin with.

I wasn't thinking remove them completely but alter then within a logical progression to allow for more realistic scenarios and development. While we're on the subject of how Fire Emblem differs from run of the mill, medieval fantasy games most of that has to do with the game play command style as a pieces on a chess board sort of design which is essentially lost when transitioning it to a roleplay. It's already very close to being a run of the mill, medieval fantasy roleplay simply by the necessity of how Fire Emblem games are written and designed so throwing out the class system wouldn't exactly do that much more than making Fire Emblem into a roleplay hasn't already done, that said I wasn't suggesting we throw out the class system.

@Prince Of Seraphs
I was actually planning to do some parts of this. In the weapons section, I was going to detail all the different sorts of weapons that fit into the different categories. I was also going to make it so that those who exclusively wield staves can still hit with them, but just aren't very proficient at doing so and therefore rely more on fighter classes to protect them.

The classes have certain rules to them, but they're more guidelines than restrictions.

The problems I'm having is that the class system as it is currently set up extreme limits on what I can do with a character. I can't create a thief that plays a musical instrument because that falls into the Bard's class. I can't have a knight who knows lances and swords or a Mage that fell on hard times and resorted to stealing learning the tricks of a thief in the process. I can't have a Fighter whose familiar with tactical analysis because that falls under the domain of the Tacticians. I can't create a Kindred whose ashamed of there ancestor and so prefers using conventional weapons and only uses the transformation stones in extremely dire circumstances. I've got a hundred different ideas for characters spinning round my head and each time I think I've landed on one that works well I cross reverence it with the class guide and realize that it crosses the boundaries too far.

On a completely unrelated note is the Falchion going to be making an appearance?

@Lugubrious Right, I will. I won't make excuses for leaving, but will offer my sincerest apologies toward the matter.

<Snipped quote by Lugubrious>

The problems I'm having is that the class system as it is currently set up extreme limits on what I can do with a character. I can't create a thief that plays a musical instrument because that falls into the Bard's class. I can't have a knight who knows lances and swords or a Mage that fell on hard times and resorted to stealing learning the tricks of a thief in the process. I can't have a Fighter whose familiar with tactical analysis because that falls under the domain of the Tacticians. I can't create a Kindred whose ashamed of there ancestor and so prefers using conventional weapons and only uses the transformation stones in extremely dire circumstances. I've got a hundred different ideas for characters spinning round my head and each time I think I've landed on one that works well I cross reverence it with the class guide and realize that it crosses the boundaries too far.

On a completely unrelated note is the Falchion going to be making an appearance?

Except you can. There is no bard class, 'Troubadour' is just the name of the mounted healers, and instruments have no inherent magical properties, so any class can have musical instruments. You can have your knight do that after he promotes. You can have a Mage with thieving skill but who doesn't use swords (the useful skills I mentioned in the thieves entry are ones that are essential to, but not exclusive to, thieves). Same goes for Tacticians--while tactical knowledge is required if you're a tactician, it is not exclusive to the tactician class. A Kindred can reclass into a different fighting style, thereby losing the ability to transform.

And maybe.

I'll put up the bits about reclassing and essential but nonexclusive skills to the OP.

<Snipped quote by Gareth>

I wasn't thinking remove them completely but alter then within a logical progression to allow for more realistic scenarios and development. While we're on the subject of how Fire Emblem differs from run of the mill, medieval fantasy games most of that has to do with the game play command style as a pieces on a chess board sort of design which is essentially lost when transitioning it to a roleplay. It's already very close to being a run of the mill, medieval fantasy roleplay simply by the necessity of how Fire Emblem games are written and designed so throwing out the class system wouldn't exactly do that much more than making Fire Emblem into a roleplay hasn't already done, that said I wasn't suggesting we throw out the class system.

I think I was trying to make this roleplay = fire emblem totally. xD It's not my roleplay lol. And so when I read that you wanted the weapons for certain people to be more realistic, like a archer able to use something to be to defend themselves from close range, I ended up posting back no, in more words.

From:The Prince of Seraphs:
The problems I'm having is that the class system as it is currently set up extreme limits on what I can do with a character. I can't create a thief that plays a musical instrument because that falls into the Bard's class. I can't have a knight who knows lances and swords or a Mage that fell on hard times and resorted to stealing learning the tricks of a thief in the process. I can't have a Fighter whose familiar with tactical analysis because that falls under the domain of the Tacticians. I can't create a Kindred whose ashamed of there ancestor and so prefers using conventional weapons and only uses the transformation stones in extremely dire circumstances. I've got a hundred different ideas for characters spinning round my head and each time I think I've landed on one that works well I cross reverence it with the class guide and realize that it crosses the boundaries too far.

From Lugubrious

Except you can. There is no bard class, 'Troubadour' is just the name of the mounted healers, and instruments have no inherent magical properties, so any class can have musical instruments. You can have your knight do that after he promotes. You can have a Mage with thieving skill but who doesn't use swords (the useful skills I mentioned in the thieves entry are ones that are essential to, but not exclusive to, thieves). Same goes for Tacticians--while tactical knowledge is required if you're a tactician, it is not exclusive to the tactician class. A Kindred can reclass into a different fighting style, thereby losing the ability to transform.

I'll put up the bits about reclassing and essential but nonexclusive skills to the OP.

From Me: Yeah I think I was just trying to be super loyal to the games. Having a realistic roleplay can't be like the games, because as Seraph says there is no chessboard in roleplays. I agree that, the chessboard is the most fire emblemish separator from run of the mill midieval fantasy roleplays.

Anyway having more freedom of character creation like having a wyvern rider learn to be a street performer or whatever the case may be, would be awesome, (my opinion.)

I hope I haven't stepped on anybody's toes.

<Snipped quote by Prince of Seraphs>

I think I was trying to make this roleplay = fire emblem totally. xD It's not my roleplay lol. And so when I read that you wanted the weapons for certain people to be more realistic, like a archer able to use something to be to defend themselves from close range, I ended up posting back no, in more words.

Anyway having more freedom of character creation like having a wyvern rider learn to be a street performer or whatever the case may be, would be awesome, (my opinion.)

I hope I haven't stepped on anybody's toes.

Not at all! I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

In other news, weapons and magic sections completed. Now working on history.

A Kindred can reclass into a different fighting style, thereby losing the ability to transform.

That essentially defeats any reason I could possibly have for making him a Kindred in the first place. The idea was that he has an extreme internal crisis about his roots, where he comes from, the origin of his powers and his ability to control them. If he can just swap classes and is no longer able to transform that entire piece of character development and conflict just vanishes. Besides what possible reason could there be that a Kindred would be unable to pick up a sword or a bow?

<Snipped quote by Prince of Seraphs>

I think I was trying to make this roleplay = fire emblem totally. xD It's not my roleplay lol. And so when I read that you wanted the weapons for certain people to be more realistic, like a archer able to use something to be to defend themselves from close range, I ended up posting back no, in more words.

<Snipped quote by Prince of Seraphs>

<Snipped quote by Lugubrious>

Yeah I think I was just trying to be super loyal to the games. Having a realistic roleplay can't be like the games, because as Seraphs says there is no chessboard in roleplays. I agree that, the chessboard is the most Fire Emblemish separator from run of the mill medieval fantasy games.

Anyway having more freedom of character creation like having a Wyvern rider learn to be a street performer or whatever the case may be, would be awesome, (my opinion.)

I hope I haven't stepped on anybody's toes.

The only toes stepped on would be mine with that deplorable lack of using real quotes in your post. (If you hadn't noticed I've got a thing about formatting) If you want to quote multiple people you just need to click the quote button on different posts. The site will add the quote to whatever's in the New Reply box rather than replacing it.

@Prince of Seraphs I'll do that in future. Sorry about your toes.

Name:

Age:

Class:

Weapons:

Fighting Style:

Personality:

History:

Appearance:

Reason for being a Reclaimer:


Here's my first character.

A very nice character, Toads. Go ahead and put her into the appropriate tab.

<Snipped quote by Lugubrious>

That essentially defeats any reason I could possibly have for making him a Kindred in the first place. The idea was that he has an extreme internal crisis about his roots, where he comes from, the origin of his powers and his ability to control them. If he can just swap classes and is no longer able to transform that entire piece of character development and conflict just vanishes. Besides what possible reason could there be that a Kindred would be unable to pick up a sword or a bow?

Or you could not reclass him at all. If he's still Kindred class, he can still be conflicted about his ability to transform, because no matter how much he hates his ancestry, the only way he'll be able to be of any use fighting is if he does transform.

The reason that people wouldn't pick up a brand-new weapon and start using it out of the blue is that they're trained with another weapon. Why use an axe when you've got experience fighting with a sword? In the spirit of the classes being guidelines rather than hard rules, I am planning to make it so that any class can use any weapon--but they'd of course be really terrible using any weapons not prescribed to their class. A class isn't just a label; a character has one because they've been trained in that fashion. Being a Myrmidon doesn't mean you're good with a sword; being good with a sword potentially means you're a Myrmidon.

So your Kindred can pick up a bilhook if he feels like it, and thrust to his heart's content, but anyone with any sort of weapon proficiency would be able to beat him.

In other news, I'm done with three of the nations. Just one left that I'll finish in a few minutes.

All rise for Rowan Hood has entered the RP.

Just out of curiosity what possible reason would the Kingdom of Bravura want to send an infamous brigand on there mission of peace?

Just a suggestions Lug but it might not be a bad idea to add something along the lines of: "Reason for Being a Reclaimer" to the CS template.

All rise for Rowan Hood has entered the RP.

Just out of curiosity what possible reason would the Kingdom of Bravura want to send an infamous brigand on there mission of peace?

Just a suggestions Lug but it might not be a bad idea to add something along the lines of: "Reason for Being a Reclaimer" to the CS template.

That is a wise idea.

@Everyone, take note: new addition to sheet.

No I get that the classes are assigned based on skill not skill assigned based on class but what I want to know is why couldn't a Kindred have been trained in the use of a sword or knife or axe if his backstory justifies it?

A person can't be a Kindred without training in how to fight in an alternate form. That said, I will make a change to the Kindred class to allow them to have some skill in a 'back-up weapon' of the player's choosing.

So your Kindred can pick up a bilhook if he feels like it, and thrust to his heart's content, but anyone with any sort of weapon proficiency would be able to beat him.

No I get that the classes are assigned based on skill not skill assigned based on class but what I want to know is why couldn't a Kindred have been trained in the use of a sword or knife or axe if his backstory justifies it?

Also would it be possible for someone to have a stave that they use as a weapon even if they have no proficiency in magic with which to use it's healing properties?

No I get that the classes are assigned based on skill not skill assigned based on class but what I want to know is why couldn't a Kindred have been trained in the use of a sword or knife or axe if his backstory justifies it?

A person can't be a Kindred without training in how to fight in an alternate form. That said, I will make a change to the Kindred class to allow them to have some skill in a 'back-up weapon' of the player's choosing.

Also would it be possible for someone to have a stave that they use as a weapon even if they have no proficiency in magic with which to use it's healing properties?

Yeah, staves can be used to smack people, even by people who can't heal with them.

@LugubriousLet me just add the new thing and I'll add Jeanne to the list.