What do the D&D classes mean to you?

[Mallus]

For me, classes aren't a single thing, conceptually. They range from "ability packages" with little or no meaning in the game's fiction to archetypes, and all points in between.

They are whatever I need them to be at the time I create a PC.

 

[Mengu]

Numbers on a paper. That's all they are, that's all I need out of them.

There isn't a Prince of Persia class, or a Samwise Gamgee class, or an Ice Queen class, or a Wolverine class. When creating a character, I come up with a concept (or borrow one), then figure out the mechanics that will most closely represent the concept. My Prince of Persia could be a fighter, or ranger, or rogue, or even a monk or barbarian. My Ice Queen could be a wizard, or sorcerer, or warlock, or witch, or even a druid. Class is just some mechanics thrown together, that I might want to play with. Concept is what matters most to me, and I do not wish the class to be the concept.

When I tell someone I'm playing a druid, they're not going to think, oh okay, that's the ice queen concept, no way... But when I came up with my animal companion as a winter wolf, my bark skin as ice skin, and use spells like fog cloud and blizzard, and reflavor my magic stones to be ice javelins, I just destroyed that typical image of a tree hugging animal worshiping druid.

 

[KidSnide]

A class is a package of abilities organized according to a coherent theme.

It's definitely not a role-playing theme or a personality. It shouldn't be a non-combat role, although it can be if a class is written very narrowly (generally, a mistake, but probably ok for optional classes in certain source books).

-KS

 

[JohnSnow]

I picked "roleplaying theme" because it's the closest to what a class really is in my mind.

Which is this: a class is a gamist expression of a heroic archetype that exists in the game world. If there's not a strong enough archetype for the class, it shouldn't exist.

A "Fighter" is the trained combatant who finds himself questing for adventure and glory, using his strength and his skill at arms.
A "Wizard" is a trained spellcaster seeking knowledge and power, who uses his mastery of the arcane arts.
A "Cleric" is a holy warrior for the church, who uses a combination of martial prowess and magical power.
A "Paladin" is a holy warrior, questing for what is right, who uses a combination of martial prowess and magical abilities to accomplish his goal.
A "rogue" is a character who seeks fortune and glory by outwitting and outsmarting his opposition.
A "ranger" is a canny wilderness warrior protecting the boundaries of civilization who uses a combination of his martial prowess and cunning to succeed.

And so on...

One thing I noticed in crafting this list is that "paladin" and "cleric" are awfully close in concept. When paladins had to be Lawful Good, they had a tighter niche that fit very well with the fictional archetypes.

Similarly, ranger straddles a middle ground that makes it look awfully like just a wilderness-themed fighter/rogue. And there really should be more to it than that.

 

[enigma5915]

Classes have always felt like a straight jacket. They provide you with an archtypical adventuring profession which for beginners is nice and feels comfortable. But when a player starts to get a feel for the game, some want to try out some more defined and different types of adventuring professions. Unfortunately this is where the stretching revels the straight jacket and the realization that it is very limited. Now there are other classes, but they only feel close to what some want to play...ie the ranger, some want the spells and some dont, some want a bow and some want two weapons. The class system can only go so far in providing options before it is bloated with an overwhelming amount of options that in reality are all still limited. Its unfortunate. I think IMHO the only good solution is to structure a classesles skill based system and then offer several familiar builds (archtypes) so players get a feel for skill set construction. I know however this will not happen with D&D. But I believe if it did, that it would pave the way to awesomeness!

 

[Libramarian]

A fantasy archetype paired with a collection of interesting, unique class abilities.

I prefer "role" to be an emergent property arising from the class abilities and the party makeup and the people playing.

Prescribing role from the outset is a little pervy.

 

[dkyle]

Bucket o' game mechanics, plus some default fluff.

The notion of "I want to play an Archer, but don't want to be a Ranger" is bizarre to me. It's trivial to build a 4E Ranger with no magical abilities, and trivial to refluff any of the woodsy stuff. The set of Ranger mechanics make sense for Archers. The Fighter's mechanics simply don't.

I don't think of Classes as being real, distinct, "in-world" entities. It's just one of many tools provided by the game designers to represent whatever character you want to build.

 

[JohnSnow]

Bucket o' game mechanics, plus some default fluff.

The notion of "I want to play an Archer, but don't want to be a Ranger" is bizarre to me. It's trivial to build a 4E Ranger with no magical abilities, and trivial to refluff any of the woodsy stuff. The set of Ranger mechanics make sense for Archers. The Fighter's mechanics simply don't.

I don't think of Classes as being real, distinct, "in-world" entities. It's just one of many tools provided by the game designers to represent whatever character you want to build.

I have a conceptual problem with "if you want to play an archer, play a ranger."

And that's this. What does the fighter do when he's fighting a dragon that just won't land? Plink at it ineffectively with a crossbow? Sit on his hands? Pick his nose? Similarly, if the caravan he's guarding gets ambushed by bandits, is the fighter supposed to just dick around and let himself get shot at until they close to melee combat? Is he supposed to run into the woods where he's no longer guarding the caravan? It's nonsensical.

So, it's not about whether rangers should be better archers than fighters. It's about whether a fighter should be able to put down his sword and fight effectively with a bow in those situations where a bow is called for.

Samurai were expected to be equally skilled with Daisho (Katana and wakizashi) and Daikyu (Great Bow). Does that mean every samurai is a multiclass fighter/ranger? Does Samurai have to be a separate class because it's from a different culture? It's nonsensical.

As another example, I think it's pretty clear that Lan Mandragoran (Moiraine's Warder in The Wheel of Time series) is a FIGHTER - despite his stealth, tracking, and wilderness survival abilities, and his (considerable) skill with a bow. He wears scale armor, and by preference fights (mostly) with his sword (his skill level is "blademaster"). Yeah, he's probably got "Warder" as a campaign-specific prestige class, but it's not like he ever stopped being a fighter so he could learn to track and what-not.

What Lan doesn't have are any of the supernatural, or deep lore herbalism abilities that we, as D&D players, typically associate with rangers. He's an accomplished horseman and tracker, and quite stealthy when he wants to be. The truth is that, for all its popularity, "ranger" is probably one of the most questionable class archetypes in D&D. In Middle Earth, it's a "role" played (mostly) by warriors.

But beyond the Dunedain, who are unique due their RACE, the rangers of Middle Earth are basically just fighters when they're doing a particular job.

Strider and coolness factor aside, that's a hard basis on which to frame an archetypal class.

 

[Scribble]

The classes are cool. I was trapped in an elevator for two hours and I had to make the whole time. But I don't blame them. Because one time, I turned into a dog and they helped me.

 

[dkyle]

I have a conceptual problem with "if you want to play an archer, play a ranger."

And that's this. What does the fighter do when he's fighting a dragon that just won't land? Plink at it ineffectively with a crossbow? Sit on his hands? Pick his nose? Similarly, if the caravan he's guarding gets ambushed by bandits, is the fighter supposed to just dick around and let himself get shot at until they close to melee combat? Is he supposed to run into the woods where he's no longer guarding the caravan? It's nonsensical.

He should use a heavy thrower. One that's a single "plus" less than his main weapon should be trivial to get, and still very useful. And at low level, before he gets a magic thrower, it shouldn't be hard to have enough DEX to be good enough at using a Bow.

And as for the caravan? He probably should go for the bandits. The Ranged-focused members of the party can keep an eye on the caravan.


You're also talking about realism. Is a character that focuses nearly exclusively on melee "realistic"? Probably not, but it's very genre-appropriate. And if you want to play the melee-focused guy that protects his party, that's what the Fighter mechanics are for.

If you want to be versatile between bows and melee, the problem isn't really with Fighters. It's with Bows being DEX-based, and Melee being STR-based, and to-hit being more vital to everyone in 4E than previous editions. Rogue is a decent choice. The Scout build for Rangers could work too, since it has DEX-based melee. Melee focused, certainly, but still useful with a bow.

So, it's not about whether rangers should be better archers than fighters. It's about whether a fighter should be able to put down his sword and fight effectively with a bow in those situations where a bow is called for.

That's not the impression I usually get. It usually seems like people want to make Archers, that aren't Rangers. That's what doesn't make much sense to me.

Wanting to have a character with multiple weapon options is a different issue, and one that is fundamentally discouraged by the design of 4E.