Homesuck: Vriska Rising

[Amake]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Princes are all about wrecking shit up.

The prince is probably the prince in Machiavelli's The Prince, a ruthless monarch who doesn't hesitate to destroy any part of his kingdom (and everyone else's) in order to stay in power.

See also: Prince Charming of the fables, an expert strategist in war and romance, always looking for the way to do the most damage.

[Ecks]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Well bear in mind that she only said a prince is *A* destroyer class, and only to indicate that it is a very active, self serving role. There are other destroyer classes, so there's other things that make a prince a prince.

Pretty sure Heir would fit under the Destroyer descriptor. Pretty sure we've seen plenty of destroyin from both John and Equius.

[POS Industries]

Yeah, I would say the "destroyer" descriptor probably does just basically boil down to DPS.

[Locke cole]

But she paired it with Bard. I'm pretty sure that she meant that Prince and Bard are "one who destroys", in the same way that Thief and Rogue are "one who steals"

[BitVyper]

Originally Posted by Locke cole

But she paired it with Bard. I'm pretty sure that she meant that Prince and Bard are "one who destroys", in the same way that Thief and Rogue are "one who steals"

Nope.

UU: a prince is a destroyer class.
UU: it is very far on the active side of the scale. its more passive coUnterpart woUld be the bard class. both of these are exclUsively designated for male players.
UU: to Understand a hero's capabilities, it always helps to search for the right way to parse the class/aspect pair into a more explicit statement.
UU: for instance, being active, a prince coUld be viewed as "one who destroys x, or caUses destrUction throUgh x," if x is the aspect.
UU: while the more passive bard coUld be seen as "one who allows x to be destroyed, or invites destrUction throUgh x," as if by the will of the aspect.

Both deal with destruction in some way, but the Bard is distinctly not a destroyer class.

[Ecks]

Thanks for cut/pasting that Bit, now I see what UU meant exactly. "A" destroyer class is in this instance specifically "the" destroyer class. The heir and knight have incredibly destructive skills but the skills in question are not particularly involved with destruction. Ergo, the prince is especially concerned with destruction, depending on the aspect and the individual hero's characteristics.

Per Bit's quote, Gamzee was the Bard of Rage. He invited or allowed destruction through rage, evidence being all over the horrorstuck segment. I suspect in fact that multiple aspect/class abilities were in play and playing off of each other without anyone recognizing that this was the case. Other than Doc Scratch of course. Eridan, as the Prince of Hope, destroyed the hopes of his race ever surviving to reproduce when he blew up the Matriorb, which he did while in a fit of rage. There are very complex relationships between a team's class and aspect powers, echoing the complex relationships between the teammates.

I find this really fascinating. It's too bad we'll never really learn the in depth mechanics, it seems as though Huss is deliberately being vague with some aspect/class combinations and we likely won't see too much of the dead players' power sets (at least not the ones that haven't been covered by reset kids anyway).

On that note, Huss hasn't updated in a couple of days. I sense a flash on the way. Or at the very least a huge smattering of pages next time he updates.

[Revising Ocelot]

Originally Posted by EckScizor

On that note, Huss hasn't updated in a couple of days. I sense a flash on the way. Or at the very least a huge smattering of pages next time he updates.

He's on a week's hiatus to do stuff concerning the books.

[Ecks]

Derp should've checked the Hussman's tumblr.

[Flarecobra]

http://askdad.tumblr.com/

Dunno if amusing, so I need opinions from others.

[Solid Snake]

So adorable