Class is in Session: Defining Heroes

[steeldragons]

[OP note: Having no "cross-edition" D&D prefix, nor something for specific Character/class creation (as opposed to "building") I guess this is the best/closest prefix. The object of the thread, however, is defining D&D (or similar FRPG) classes]

Given a few "Class" specific or questioning threads/posts of late ("What you can't live with out", Class vs. Classless, adding/expanding Feats, and others) I began to think about what makes a particular class that class?

What is necessary for a "fighter" to be a "fighter" versus a "ranger" or (though I profess no understanding of 4e classes) a "warlord."

When you boil them down, how is a druid not a cleric? A cleric not a paladin? A paladin not a fighter?

Not so much in a "crunch" kind of way...though certainly, obviously, most of the special abilities/particular skills and allowances of the various classes are and have mechanical significance that helps in defining the particular class "flavor."

So, just off of the top of my head, here's what I've been coming up with.

Feel free to agree/disagree/amend/add something you think intrinsic to the class I may have forgotten or overlooked (or, just plain something you consider essential that I do/have not).

[I will be operating from a pre-3e perspective. But interpretations from any/all editions are, of course, welcome. No edition flaming/warring please and thank you.]

Warrior-types:
Fighter: Any Armor. Any weapon. Weapon specialization possible. Knowledge and skills in almost any area possible. Most desired high stat: Strength.

Ranger: Any armor (lighter varieties preferred). Any weapon. Bow specialization. The Original Two-weapon-fighter (if you want to be technically by the book. Personally I allow TWF as a skill for any ranger, rogue or fighter...and certain barbarian tribes). Tracking, Survival skills, Stealth and Animal husbandry. Most desired high stat: Constitution and Dexterity (though, yes, I know others were necessary, RAW, to be able to be a ranger in the first place.)

Paladin: Any armor (heavier varieties preferred). Any weapon. Divinely-imbued powers (though I don't count "spell-use" among them. But the laying on hands, protections, immunities...that sort of thing). Tactical and religious knowledge/skills. Most desired high stat: Strength and Wisdom.

Barbarian: Light armor. Any weapon. "Beserker rage"/Copious amounts of damage. Resistance to and distrust of magic. Tracking, Survival skills, Stealth. Most desired stat: Strength and Constitution.

--SD

 

[LurkAway]

My Novice-level 2 cents: In 1E, I used to think that a "fighter" was anyone adept at surviving in the thick of combat. So a 1st level 1E wizard was definitely not a fighter. By 3E, I think wizards were usually moderate fighters but you could create a bookish non-fighter wizard. In 4E, "fighter" loses that kind of distinction because EVERY class is a "fighter" IMO, or to put it another way, each 4E class is defined as a distinct fighting style for a hero, and non-fighter heroes are not really defined for gameplay.

I guess my point is that I think the definition and feel of a hero and class is somewhat dependant on the edition and, if that's true, would need to be accounted for.

 

[steeldragons]

"The Wise Ones":
Cleric: Any armor. Limited (non-bladed) weapons. Divinely-imbued spell use. Power over the Undead. Religious and knowledge-based skills/abilities. Most desired stat: Wisdom.

Druid: Light armor. Limited weapons (though some blades allowed). Nature/Element effecting spell-use. Uninhibited movement in natural surrouindings. Shape-changing (eventually, not right off the bat). Various immunities to nature-based threats. Communion with the Natural world. Most desired stats: Wisdom and Constitution.

Shaman: Light armor. Limited weapons (though some blades allowed). Spell-use (duplicating divine and nature and arcane effects) imbued by the "spirit world" or "totemic entities". Power over spirits (including limited effects of certain undead). Most desired stats: Wisdom and Intelligence (one needs to be "crafty" when dealing with spirits

Arcane Spellcasters/Magic-users, wizards, mages, sorcerers, witches, whatever term for them you like to use:
No armor. Limited weapons. Arcane spell use gleaned, discovered or uncovered and gathered over time through intense study, research and/or communion in/with the esoteric and occult. Knowledge-based skills/abilities (languages, histories and, of course, all manner of magical topics). Most desired stat: Intelligence.

--SD

 

[steeldragons]

My Novice-level 2 cents: In 1E, I used to think that a "fighter" was anyone adept at surviving in the thick of combat. So a 1st level 1E wizard was definitely not a fighter. By 3E, I think wizards were usually moderate fighters but you could create a bookish non-fighter wizard. In 4E, "fighter" loses that kind of distinction because EVERY class is a "fighter" IMO, or to put it another way, each 4E class is defined as a distinct fighting style for a hero, and non-fighter heroes are not really defined for gameplay.

I guess my point is that I think the definition and feel of a hero and class is somewhat dependant on the edition and, if that's true, would need to be accounted for.

Valid points. It is always interesting to see how the view/definition of any of the classes has changed (though I would not say, necessarily, "grown") through the editions.

I am, of course, using the term "Fighter" as its original class-definition. That is, a warrior, skilled in the use of arms and trained for battle above/beyond the other classes. Though, I suppose I could also, just as easily, entitled that first batch of classes as "Fighter-types" with "Warrior" being the first specific one. But since, from the dawn of the game, the class name was "Fighter" (or, specifically, "Fighting Man" in OD&D), that was what I used.

Your observation for the 1e fighter, however, is (IMHO) particularly true that a defining quality of the Fighter, as a class, would be to be the best at surviving in a direct combat.

--SD

 

[steeldragons]

Rogues:

Thief: Light armor. Any weapon (thrown and missile weapons common. I'm in a memory glitch right now if Thieves were originally prohibitted from using two-handed weapons...I'm not sure, but it would kind of make sense). Stealth and infiltration skills. Trap detection/removal. Most desired stat: Dexterity.

Assassin: Light armor. Any weapon. Stealth and infiltration skills. Poison knowledge/use. Most desired stats: Dexterity and Strength.

Bard: Light or medium armor. Any weapon. Spell-use evoked by their music. Musical ability. Stealth and infiltration skills. Charisma and Knowledge-based skills/abilities. Most desired stat: Dexterity and Charisma.

--SD

 

[steeldragons]

So, a little help, if you would be so kind...

Given the types of descriptions I've used above, would someone more familiar with 4e and Essentials (and/or 3.x for that matter) than myself care to give me the flavorful bones of a few of the following...or a favorite I don't have listed here...interested to hear what people have to say.

Warlord
Avenger
Seeker
Warden

...I also understand there is a "Knight" class in Essentials? How do they differ from an Avenger or Warlord...or Paladin or the ole Unearthed Arcana Cavalier for that matter?

Runepriest
Arcane Archer
I dunno...whatever ever else strikes your fancy.
Have at it.

--Steel Dragons

 

[Meatboy]

For me defining classes is really a matter of task resolution. That is, how does a class go about solving problems in the game. For me then I see only 3 classes The Warrior, The Rogue and The Mage.

The Warrior uses force of arms to solve in game problems. The kinds of arms may change, like what weapons or armor the warrior uses or how they use them, but fundamentally it comes down to physical force. If the enemy confronts you, hit them. If the door is locked, bash it. If the prison won't listen to reason slap them around a bit. They are generally straight forward types and probably one of the "easiest" types to play.

The Rogue uses their "skill" to solve in game problems. The skills they have change and determine how well they can overcome a challenge. If the door is locked, they can pick it, or maybe scale the wall and get in from another way, or perhaps they steal a key or maybe even convince someone to let them in. The rogue is only limited by their skills and the imagination of the player. Not that the warrior isn't capable of the same things it should just be easier for the rogue to pull off.
Where they fall behind however is where the warrior shines and that is direct confrontation. The Rogue type can't really stand up and support themselves in battle. That's not their thing, in my eyes anyway, only if things have gone south should they end up operating in The Warrior's domain.

The Mage uses their spells to solve problems. Its almost an instant win kind of power, provided of course that you have the right spell for the task.
If the door is locked unlock it with magic, or charm the guard or teleport inside if you can. The mage ends up only being limited then by what spells they have access to and how often they can use them. This contrasts somewhat with the other two "classes" who can access their problem solving mechanic pretty much at will. The Mage ends up being exceptionally powerful in that he can overcome pretty much any problem provided that the spells he has match the problem.

Pretty much all classes, in dnd at least, fall into one of these groups. They try to make them do it in different ways by giving certain perks or pushing them into niches.

The exceptions are classes which are hybrids, such as the cleric. The Cleric is really just a fighter/mage. They get armor, and decent weapons and some magic giving them a few more ways to resolve in game issues.

I feel this only applies to older style games( od&d to 3ed ). I agree with Lurkaway about 4e. The designers tried to make it so that all classes could solve problems either using force or skill, the instant win magic kind of got removed. Even though many classes "use magic" they seem to really just be another form of force, so I feel they don't distinguish themselves enough from the warrior in that respect.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

For me, I like the way how 4e split it in terms of sources although my preference is a slight adjustment of those.

Martial
Relating to ability derived from the character.

Divine
Relating to ability derived from the immortal realms.

Primal
Relating to ability derived from the spiritual realms.

Arcane
Relating to ability derived from cheating the physical laws of the multiverse.

All characters have access to martial abilities, while the other three sources require a relationship with either the spiritual or divine, or the knowledge of how to bend the laws of the multiverse to your will.

Using this as a basis, mixing these produces a few interesting ways of interpreting the 3e class structure (as that is what you are most familiar with as well as it is good to combine both editions meaningfully into a discussion).

- Barbarian: A mix of martial and sometimes primal. I don't think berserker/rage abilities are always primal in nature although they can be.
- Bard: A mix of martial and arcane (although I associate the bard more as a variation on the sorcerer).
- Cleric: A mix of divine and martial with the priest at the divine end of the spectrum and the paladin at the other.
- Druid: Primal with a possible mixing of martial.
- Fighter: Martial all the way.
- Monk: I don't really like monks actually, preferring to call them "Brothers", while stripping out the wuxia influences. In terms of this system though, I think you are looking at a mix of martial with one of the other sources.
- Paladin: A classic mix of the divine and martial.
- Ranger: I like the idea of the pure "martial" ranger (think Scout) as well as the primal/martial ranger.
- Rogue: I see very little difference between a Rogue and a Fighter except that one primarily focuses on combat while the other primarily focuses on non-combat. Martial all the way.
- Sorcerer:I see sorcerers as relating to the arcane through themselves (and thus combine arcane with martial). They have taint upon their souls.
- Wizard: Wizards however access magic through without, by studying and combining this with access to and controlling magical items such as wands, scrolls, spellbooks and the like.

I think most of the 4e classes are an interesting take or specific variation of one or more of these. However, the one 4e class that stands out is:

- Warlord: I prefer to think that the warlord if primarily martial. This is not to stop being influenced by one of the other three sources.

So yeah. Just something a little different for you; my own take on how I would like things to be.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise