Mearls talks about his inspiration for the 4e classes

[Grimstaff]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

I wonder if the actual wizard had any wizardy inspiration. Not that cribbing Gandalf for the Invoker makes him illegal to use as a wizard, of course, but D&D wizards haven't been very Gandalf-y ever.

I also wonder if mearls's experience of fantasy inspiration coming later is something that the rest of the team had, as well -- in other words, that they might start with, say, a mechanical inspiration or a 3e class that needs an analogue, and only worry about the fantasy you can distil from that after the initial inspiration.

Something like "We need a healer who is not the cleric" -> Warlord, or "We have all these neat cleric attack spells that didn't get used" -> Invoker/Avenger.

I also wonder how much their inspiration matches the ideas that come later. Thinking about it after mearls's comment, Gandalf = Invoker makes some sense, but before then, what was Gandalf to you in D&D? And what was the Invoker?

The original D&D wizard, or "magic-user", was taken almost whole cloth from Jack Vance's "Dying Earth". Read just the first 10 pages or so and you'll understand. Tolkein's work inspired som e of the monster selection in D&D, the hobbit(aka halfling), and the ranger, and that was about it.

[w_earle_wheeler]

Originally Posted by Voadam

Why do you see Conan as a multiclass rogue in 4e? I have only skimmed the 4e PH but my understanding is that rogue powers work only with light weapons while Conan uses big swords and axes with which these would not work.

Conan rarely went heavily armored. He usually went nearly naked or lightly covered.

Also, Conan as the axe-weilding maniac wasn't really how he was presented in the original Robert E. Howard stories. More than anything, he used a dagger -- simply because it was convenient.

However, Conan wasn't a backstabber, and not really much of a trap-springer, though he had a very good sense of perception. He was also a legendary climber and all around sneaky guy.

So yeah, he doesn't really need to multiclass as a Rogue to be a "thief" at all, but if he wants the stealth skill, he'd be better served by multiclassing than by taking the skill feat.

[Mouseferatu]

Originally Posted by w_earle_wheeler

Conan rarely went heavily armored. He usually went nearly naked or lightly covered.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Having reread a lot of the stories lately, I was surprised at how often he was described as wearing a chain hauberk or its equivalent. And I think I recall him using a sword far more often than either axe or dagger.

But yeah, there's certainly room for interpretation.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by w_earle_wheeler

Conan rarely went heavily armored. He usually went nearly naked or lightly covered.

Also, Conan as the axe-weilding maniac wasn't really how he was presented in the original Robert E. Howard stories. More than anything, he used a dagger -- simply because it was convenient.

However, Conan wasn't a backstabber, and not really much of a trap-springer, though he had a very good sense of perception. He was also a legendary climber and all around sneaky guy.

So yeah, he doesn't really need to multiclass as a Rogue to be a "thief" at all, but if he wants the stealth skill, he'd be better served by multiclassing than by taking the skill feat.

If anything, I think the tendency to quantify everything in strict game mechanics has caused the "confusion" as to what class(es) Conan might be. After all, the games inspired, at least in part, by REH's Conan stories didn't get so fiddly with character abilities. Sneaking around, climbing walls and ambushing enmies weren't the province of a class, they were things anybody could -- and probably should -- do when confronted with the same situations Conan found himself in.

Remember, "Hide in Shadows" and "Move Silently" were, in AD&D (OD&D didn't even have a "thief") weren't "stealth" -- they were literally super special ways of being sneaky (and you couldn't do both at once). "Climb walls" was actually "climb sheer surfaces" -- any idiot with some brains and some brawn could try and pull himself up a rugged cliff or a stonework wall. Players were expected to be creative, and in return they expected that the game world worked "realistically" and their mighty thewed barbarian (aka 3rd level fighter with a 17 strength) would have a reasonable chance of scaling the tower wall to get to the gem encrusted crown.

It wasn't until the advent of skills/proficiencies/what-have-you that the classes really started to be restrictive in this regard. Once mechanical elements were added to determine exactly what a character was capable of, the list of what the character wasn't capable of became huge. Suddenly, Conan *had* to be a fighter-thief because fighters just couldn't climb walls.

I think one of the reasons that the retro-clone, and similar games like the new Hackmaster, have come back into vogue is that with movies like Jackson's Lord of the Rings, players once again expect to be able to *do stuff* that a hero of their type and caliber should be capable of. Aragorn performs many varied tasks -- riding, healing, fighting, leading men, tracking, diplomacy -- because he is a Dunedain Ranger. He doesn't lack for skills because he *isn't* something else.

[Amphimir Míriel]

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

could kill you with his brain.

Originally Posted by Leatherhead

I thought that was what psionics was for.

...or the Corruption Corpse Zombie

[w_earle_wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Having reread a lot of the stories lately, I was surprised at how often he was described as wearing a chain hauberk or its equivalent. And I think I recall him using a sword far more often than either axe or dagger.

But yeah, there's certainly room for interpretation.

I've been reading through the original Robert E. Howard Conan stuff fairly recently, and it seems that in almost every story, Conan makes use of a dagger -- and just as often, he ends up losing it.

As for the chain hauberks and so forth, you're right -- whenever Conan was working as a sellsword and riding to war, he wore armor. It was when he was working as a "thief" that he was scantily clad.

In either case, I remember that my first reaction to 4e was "Wow -- you could run a great Conan style campaign with this, especially since everyone has some kind of healing ability, it lessens the need for Clerics."

And back to the original influences, I certainly saw lots of the Grey Mouser in the 4e Rogue, which I thought was awesome.

The 4e rules already presented lend themselves to a pretty wide range of campaigning, from light-magic Lieber/Howard Sword and Sorcery to high-fantasy stuff.

All we need now is the ability to change the names and fluff text of powers in the Character Builder! I'd love to replace all the flavor text with classic fantasy quotes.

[Hunter In Darkness]

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Having reread a lot of the stories lately, I was surprised at how often he was described as wearing a chain hauberk or its equivalent. And I think I recall him using a sword far more often than either axe or dagger.

But yeah, there's certainly room for interpretation.

I agree with this, he was often armored in what he could find, same with weapons. He tended to wear weapon and armor, of the area he was in at the time

[Amphimir Míriel]

I will not enter the Gandalf debate, but I'll support the idea that Conan is really a Fighter with several extra trained skills.

In the original stories, he is often described wearing armor (except when he's a pirate) and usually wields a sword.

It is the comic book Conan the one that wears the furry thong

Also, one of my first observations when I read the 4E PHB was "Rogue = Grey Mouser", so I guess its nice to be confirmed.

Another observation is that Aragorn is best modeled in this edition by the Warlord class (maybe with the Warrior of the Wild multiclass feat)

[Rechan]

Avenger: Ripping aside the ethereal nature of Wolf's Book of the New Sun and treating it as a comic book of sorts, Severian the torturer was a major influence on this class's initial feel and direction. Obviously its divine roots steered in a different direction, but I can easily see playing an avenger based on fantasy's most famous torturer.

Bard: Fflewddur Fflam from Alexander's Prydain books provided a fair amount of inspiration.

I'm unfamiliar with either of these.

[thedungeondelver]

Originally Posted by Relique du Madde

*Head Explodes*

since I happen to have this handy...

(edit: the exploding head gif from SCANNERS is not as someone else pointed out grandmother safe.)

[Doug McCrae]

REH was always coming up with excuses as to why Conan would be practically naked in a fair number of the stories. I think the real reason was so he could perv over the Cimmerian's mighty thews. With the dancing girls I don't recall Howard even bothering with an excuse. They'd just be naked. Like her clothes all fell off in a strong wind or whatever. Who cares? Get describing her lithe suppleness pronto!

[Mouseferatu]

Originally Posted by Rechan

I'm unfamiliar with either of these.

You can be forgiven for the former, but lack of familiarity with the latter is cause for having your Geek Card revoked.

[JRRNeiklot]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

The "problem" is that neither Merlin or Gandalf are quintessential Wizards as described by D&D. Merlin and Gandalf don't cast fireballs. (Maybe Pyrotechncs, in Gandalfs case). )

Actually, Gandalf DOES cast fireballs. He burns worgs and goblins alike in The Hobbit.

[w_earle_wheeler]

Originally Posted by Amphimir Míriel

It is the comic book Conan the one that wears the furry thong

... but, daggers I tells ya! Millions and millions of daggers!

[Mistwell]

Originally Posted by Grimstaff

The original D&D wizard, or "magic-user", was taken almost whole cloth from Jack Vance's "Dying Earth". Read just the first 10 pages or so and you'll understand. Tolkein's work inspired som e of the monster selection in D&D, the hobbit(aka halfling), and the ranger, and that was about it.

I just finished reading the entire dying earth series (a couple of days ago). Great series.

I'd say it's really not taken whole cloth from Vance's dying earth. It's only vaguely taken from it in most respects. You essentially get two elements - memorization of spells, and naming of spells after famous spell-makers.

The rest seems to be mostly or entirely ignored. The power of spells (every wizard can kill any other non-wizard with a single spell unless they have magic to protect themselves), the nature of spells as living things that are wrestled with, their origin as demon-powered, the use of Ioun stones to further power spells themselves, etc... none of that actually was carried over to D&D.

So yeah, inspired by some Vance stuff, but not wholly carried over in my opinion.

[Ariosto]

I am not sure that the nature of Gandalf (or the Ring, or other things) had yet been pinned down to their later definitions when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit. Certainly, I see much in a very different light when reading the book through the lens of TLOTR and the posthumously published works than I did when first it enchanted me -- and I know that Gygax liked TH better.

The D&D magic-user owes, I think, much of its inspiration to the war-game context in which it originated (as part of the Fantasy Supplement to Chainmail). Portions of the spell lists reflect the figure's role as basically an artillery piece.

That was of course just part of it, but perhaps a bigger part now in 4E. The scholarly aspect really came to the fore in AD&D, as the character started with but a few spells and had to seek more in scrolls and codices recovered from the depths of dungeons. Questing for enchanted wands, rings and other artifacts of power was also key. The first pages of Howard's The Hour of the Dragon tell of such undertakings.

The druid class has often seemed to me most evocative of Gandalf, Merlin and other enchanters in old tales -- but of course it is no perfect fit.

The mightiest mortals of Middle-Earth (at least in the Third Age) might well best be modeled in old D&D (even 3E) terms as 5th or 6th level.

Originally Posted by Mearls

IMNSHO, the rogue has been saddled with the status of "class that has to suck since it's the only one that can deal with traps."

Well, there's a problem of misunderstanding (or conscious deviation from) the original idea. It would be a deadly one, too, considering that a 1st-level human thief was (per Supplement I) 9 times as likely to blow it as to succeed at trap removal -- and even a dwarf thief had odds of 3 to 1 against! Moreover, the thief's dice-roll applied only to "small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)". However were adventurers to deal with pits full of poisoned stakes, scything blades, spring-launched spears, vials of poison gas, collapsing ceilings or crushing walls, death rays ... ?

The chief inspiration for the thief's class functions seems to me likely to have been Zelazny's Jack of Shadows. Cugel and Mouser also shaped the composite archetype, of course -- but the powers of hiding in shadows, moving silently and climbing nearly sheer surfaces (even, in AD&D, horizontal surfaces, i.e., ceilings!) are qualitatively more than mundane.

The literally roguish qualities of Vance's and Leiber's characters (Cugel in particular being a silver-tongued rakehell) have never really come to the fore.

Now, the rogue (along with the ranger) has been largely transformed into a combat specialist of the sort lately categorized as a "striker". That is quite an about-face from the thief's former strategy of generally avoiding open combat (lacking puissance, armor and hit points).

I would characterize the Mouser first as a fighter (and then as a lover) -- very accomplished (and aided by his slight stature and customary garb) at stealth, and possessed of a rudimentary education in sorcery. Yes, I think the 4E rogue fits rather nicely.

[Orius]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Well, D&D spells and magic system is kinda based on Vance books, and I suppose the wizards in his Dying Earth novels must have bee kinda like the D&D Wizards. At least that's what I gather from the various discussions on "Vancian Magic".
The mechanical roots supposedly were Artillery pieces from war games. I don't know if that is really true, though it kinda makes sense.

That's about right. The wizard goes back to Chainmail where it originally was a special hero unit or something that could cast fireballs and lightning bolts. Mechanically, the fireball was equivalent to a catapult and the lightning bolt to a ballista. The whole spells per day was inspired by Vance. So that's the basis of the original wizard (MU if you prefer), whose powers got fleshed out as spells were added little by little to the system.

The thing is though, Vance is pretty obscure. I'd say most people hear about him after playing D&D. The closest things I can think of to the whole magical scholar type that would be widely known to peple who'd be interested in D&D would be the Aes Sedai from the Wheel of Time, Pratchett's Unseen University (I'm surprised you didn't mention that), and/or Harry Potter, but all three come after D&D.

Originally Posted by Keefe the Thief

The model for the Avenger should be this guy.

I'm thinking...assassin?

Though yeah, the holy slayer thing is I guess close to the Avenger, right?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Reynard

I think one of the reasons that the retro-clone, and similar games like the new Hackmaster, have come back into vogue is that with movies like Jackson's Lord of the Rings, players once again expect to be able to *do stuff* that a hero of their type and caliber should be capable of. Aragorn performs many varied tasks -- riding, healing, fighting, leading men, tracking, diplomacy -- because he is a Dunedain Ranger. He doesn't lack for skills because he *isn't* something else.

I think it is also a reason for the Star Wars Saga and the D&D 4 skill system. Every character can basically roll on any skill. And with level, you get better. QUite simply because that all the skills in the system are skills every adventurer has to has. Like in A-Team - everyone of them can do mechanics, can disguise himself, can engage in a con, can wield an automatic rifle. They have specialists that might do some of this stuff better (Hannibal is their disguise expert, Face is, well, their face man, BA might be their mechanic, Murdock their pilot) , but they all have a "basic proficiency" that allows them to through at least the average situation. There should never be a time where you don't dare to take a overpowered enemies uniform to sneak into the enemies base just because no one has spend 15 skill points in Bluff and Disguise.

The only "flaw" might be that if using skills against equal level foes, you need training to have a good chance to succeed (as good as a chance as one might expect from movies, TV Shows and novels at least). If you use the (errated!) skill challenge DCs, you probably come a lot closer to the desired success changes.

[Klaus]

Originally Posted by Amphimir Míriel

I will not enter the Gandalf debate, but I'll support the idea that Conan is really a Fighter with several extra trained skills.

In the original stories, he is often described wearing armor (except when he's a pirate) and usually wields a sword.

It is the comic book Conan the one that wears the furry thong

Also, one of my first observations when I read the 4E PHB was "Rogue = Grey Mouser", so I guess its nice to be confirmed.

Another observation is that Aragorn is best modeled in this edition by the Warlord class (maybe with the Warrior of the Wild multiclass feat)

Or the Bard class, which can be as warlordish as the Warlord. Valorous Bard, even.

[Amphimir Míriel]

Originally Posted by Klaus

Or the Bard class, which can be as warlordish as the Warlord. Valorous Bard, even.

True dat... Aragorn apparently spends all his free time singing

...but then again, EVERYBODY in LOTR spends all their free time singing (the Bath Song, anyone?)

This looks like another argument against the Perform skill (why have one if everyone can sing already?)