Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6197003" data-attributes="member: 7635">I was considering some of various class debates (X is/isn't a class) and I think I have an idea as to why their is such division on what is/isn't a class.Classes really come in two forms: Professions and Archetypes. Allow me to explain. A profession is what someone does. Its his job. He trains to be it. He probably would refer to himself as such (&quot;I am a ranger&quot;). An archetype describes what someone is, but not how they would necessarily see himself as. A barbarian, for example, would not think of himself as a barbarian. However, society would describe him as such and react accordingly. He wouldn't call himself a barbarian except to acknowledge what society thinks of him. Most classes fall into one or the other, but its a blurry line since many professions end up archetypes in themselves. Some examples of profession classes: bard, druid, ranger, paladin, samurai, thief, and wizardSome examples of archetype classes: fighter, rogue, swashbuckler, barbarian, magic-user, and sorcerer. The problem aligns when people think all classes should be one or the other. People who think classes represent archetypes dislike the confinement of specific professions. They want champions and not paladins, nature priests and not druids. Those who think classes are professions want specialized classes rather than generic classes. Additionally, archetypers want a few, broad classes while professioners want many specialized classes.Which begins to beg the question; should D&amp;D classes lean toward supporting archetypes (and let the PC fill in the gaps) or more towards professions (which have a stronger link to fluff and crunch) or neither?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6197003, member: 7635"] I was considering some of various class debates (X is/isn't a class) and I think I have an idea as to why their is such division on what is/isn't a class. Classes really come in two forms: Professions and Archetypes. Allow me to explain. A profession is what someone does. Its his job. He trains to be it. He probably would refer to himself as such ("I am a ranger"). An archetype describes what someone is, but not how they would necessarily see himself as. A barbarian, for example, would not think of himself as a barbarian. However, society would describe him as such and react accordingly. He wouldn't call himself a barbarian except to acknowledge what society thinks of him. Most classes fall into one or the other, but its a blurry line since many professions end up archetypes in themselves. Some examples of profession classes: bard, druid, ranger, paladin, samurai, thief, and wizard Some examples of archetype classes: fighter, rogue, swashbuckler, barbarian, magic-user, and sorcerer. The problem aligns when people think all classes should be one or the other. People who think classes represent archetypes dislike the confinement of specific professions. They want champions and not paladins, nature priests and not druids. Those who think classes are professions want specialized classes rather than generic classes. Additionally, archetypers want a few, broad classes while professioners want many specialized classes. Which begins to beg the question; should D&D classes lean toward supporting archetypes (and let the PC fill in the gaps) or more towards professions (which have a stronger link to fluff and crunch) or neither? [/QUOTE]

Verification