Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TrippyHippy" data-source="post: 5784966" data-attributes="member: 27252">It's a curious point to make, but I actually think they got the Classes wrong in the original game, particularly in reference to the Cleric Class. Originally, there were two Classes (Fighting Men and Magic Users), before Clerics were added in order to provide a healing Class. Thieves were named after, and added the first rudimentary skill system to the game. The thing is, Clerics and Thieves aren't Classes in the same sense that Fighters and Magic Users are. They are too specific, and a more of an Archetype than an actual classification. Fighters and Magic Users, on the other hand, are catch-all types that incorporate a wide variety of archetypes (why can't Magic Users be healers?). Now, Rogues were introduced to broaden out the scope of Thieves (quite effectively) to include all sorts of everymen heroes and nefarious types. They were clearly distinct as a 'Class' and were fun to play. Clerics, on the other hand have always been a bit of a hard sell, whilst at the same time being indespensible because of their healing role. Moreover, they are a forced Class - a holy warrior or spell casting priest could easily be classified amongst the Fighter Class or Magic User Class respectively. Not only this, but they are barely represented in fantasy literature at all. I do recall 1st edition WFRP actually classified it's Careers originally into Warriors, Rogues, Rangers and Scholars. In some ways, I think this would be a better way of doing things. A Ranger, as a Core Class would incorporate all sorts of wilderness survivalists, as well as hunters, wardens, guides, explorers and healers (think Aragorn). Fighters, could then (with customisation) include slayers, knights, paladins, monks, samurai, warrior-priests, guards and so on. Mages (abbreviated from Magic Users) would include all Wizards, Sorcerers, Witches, Warlocks, Clerics (Priests), Druids, Shamans, Scholars and so on. Rogues would include Thieves, Assassins, Bards?, Treasure-seekers, Everymen, etc. So we would have just four Classes (Fighter, Mage, Ranger, Rogue), but also a means of customisation, multiclassing, and any number of Prestige Classes to represent personal archetypes of a players choosing. The thing is, players would know that if you wanted to be good at combat skills you need levels in Fighter; if you wanted to use any magic you need some levels in Mage; exploration and survival skills - a Ranger, and the everyman choice still being a Rogue.</blockquote>

Verification