Ye Olde Inn

I revisited my old classes and chose the ones I liked best (which were also the most easily refined) and ended up with a nice selection of anti-heroes: the Revenant, Rogue, and Witch to replace the Barbarian, Elf, and Wizard respectively. Don't have anything for the Dwarf, unfortunately.

UPDATE: This thread has sorta exploded into a discussion about undead in general, so if anyone uses these heroes and wants to leave feedback, just PM me.


Version 2 Revenant, who now can return from death, albeit weaker.


Yeah, everyone's made a rogue before. I think mine has a good balance, though, between combat weakness and overall usefulness in a dungeon.


Super handy to have around, so long as her brains hold out.

Give 'em a whirl and see if they work for you!

These are cool. Although, I would choose something better than 'rogue,' as it actually refers to an idle beggar. Such kind would often pretend to be educated men to deceive others. Rogue has everything to do with deception, and not disarming traps. I hate D&D's third edition for spreading misuse of words like rogue and arcane.

Thief or even Brava (female form of Bravo) would be more appropriate. A Bravo is a a desperado or hired killer/fighter, specifically motivated by wealth or favors.

Of course, HeroQuest already uses terms like longsword, broadsword and chainmail (all three modern misnomers) to describe the bastard sword, arming sword, and mail hauberk, respectively. So, whatever.

chaoticprime wrote:it actually refers to an idle beggar.

That's oversimplifying it a little, isn't it? I've seen it as a term for "beggar" but mostly as a term for any independent outcast. That definition makes more sense with how often it's used to refer to something that's "gone rogue," like a rogue agent or battalion or missile: it's strayed from its designated path and started doing its own thing, probably for the worse.

That's probably why D&D classified so many different castes as "rogue": the sort of person who would live a life of thievery would hardly be a humble conformist.

Meanwhile they go and do the opposite with spellcasters, making each synonym for "wizard" its own classification (though I'm not complaining).

mikemacdee wrote:

chaoticprime wrote:it actually refers to an idle beggar.

That's oversimplifying it a little, isn't it? I've seen it as a term for "beggar" but mostly as a term for any independent outcast. That definition makes more sense with how often it's used to refer to something that's "gone rogue," like a rogue agent or battalion or missile: it's strayed from its designated path and started doing its own thing, probably for the worse.

That's probably why D&D classified so many different castes as "rogue": the sort of person who would live a life of thievery would hardly be a humble conformist.

Meanwhile they go and do the opposite with spellcasters, making each synonym for "wizard" its own classification (though I'm not complaining).

Yes, like classifying arcane and divine magic. Divinity and Magic are largely the same thing, though one attributes wonders having come from gods, the other from someplace nobody knows. Arcane just means something is shut up inside a closed box--an ark.

Being called a rogue certainly correlates with thievery, but does not actually describe someone of the skillset in question. Just as the above example with the "rogue missile," because missiles can go rogue does not mean you should call them rogues instead of missiles.

It just strikes me as a broad term, like "warrior" which would encompass knight, barbarian, etc.

Rogue also describes Barbarians as much as Warrior does. That is probably why the character type was called a Thief, from 1979 til 2001, in Dungeons & Dragons. The very notion that one member of a cooperative party is called a rogue, in the sense as being dysfunctional or outcast, is absurd. Barbarian, Elf, Dwarf, Wizard, Revenant and Witch all describe the backgrounds of warriors. Further specification could then label them as fighters or magic-users, based on the particular training for each. Rogue does not imply being an outcast, it implies an uncertain origin. The word picaroon was used to describe the archetypical adventure types like swashbuckler, pirate, etc. It root, picaro, was basically the Spanish equivalent of rogue, however with emphasis that background was not important. A picaresque hero is one like Sinbad, that should logically be an Arab, but is usually portrayed as a white male. Picaresque and roguish are basically the same thing. But, as I stated earlier, its a corollary. D&D began using rogue to describe thieves, because thieves had been described as roguish before hand, and presumably because they thought rogue sounded cool.

Here is Gygax's take on it.
http://www.dyingearth.com/files/GARY%20 ... 0VANCE.pdf

I like your anti-heroes. I do, because you didn't overpower them as many of us do with custom heroes.
Advantages are weighed down appropriately by loosening the MP + BP = 10 formula.

But for the Revenant I don't see how he takes damage more than others and is more easily affected by spells other than his BP and MP, respectively.
I understand he's the substitute for the Barbarian, so there have to be written down advantages for his -1 AD and -1 BP.
It occurs to me that any physical damage by a monster attack (not by a trap or spell) could be halved (rounded up), for example.
That's one possibility to make your comment of him "taking a lot of damage" tangible.

But I'm sure you have something different in mind...

chaoticprime wrote:A Bravo is a a desperado or hired killer/fighter, specifically motivated by wealth or favors.

Do you have a link to more info on this? I try to make unusual custom classes and am indeed interested in a less cliche class name in any case.

knightkrawler wrote:I like your anti-heroes. I do, because you didn't overpower them as many of us do with custom heroes.

Myself included. *cough*

knightkrawler wrote:But for the Revenant I don't see how he takes damage more than others and is more easily affected by spells other than his BP and MP, respectively.
I understand he's the substitute for the Barbarian, so there have to be written down advantages for his -1 AD and -1 BP.

You're pretty much right: it explains his high BP and low MP. The "poisons and diseases" thing is the main special thing because dungeon-makers can put all kinds of traps and hazards in their quests, like poison needles, poison gas, sewer sludge that damages you to walk through...though I could give him further thought.

Maybe when he dies, he rolls a red die and returns to life in that many rounds (unless all other heroes are down as well) with his max BP reduced by 3? It'd be much more befitting of a revenant (it's French for "return" or something anyway). What do you think?

I don't know. Revenant means "He who has come back", so basically it's another word for Zombie, but there's no need to fiddle around with words here.
If you're gonna have an undead for a hero, a term which is different from monsters is needed. Revenant is perfect.

Here's another idea: After he suffers the loss of BP, he gets to roll 1 combat die. With a skull he immediately regains 1 BP.
That's kind of how I handle the regeneration power of trolls, though they don't need to roll a die; rather than that, troll regeneration is automatic, so heroes have to hit him with at least 2 BP to hurt him. But that would be much too powerful for a hero.

chaoticprime wrote:I would choose something better than 'rogue,' as it actually refers to an idle beggar. Such kind would often pretend to be educated men to deceive others. Rogue has everything to do with deception, and not disarming traps. I hate D&D's third edition for spreading misuse of words like rogue and arcane.

I always though Rogues were like thieves, hiding in shadows. Like Morik the Rogue from the Drizzt books.
But I guess in the fantasy world there are many words we would use differently in real life, that's why it's fantasy, right?

Nice heroes!