Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6197113" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think there is another relevant factor that needs to be considered - namely, mechanical details.As far as archetype is concerned, there is not much to choose between the classic D&amp;D cleric (heavily armed and armoured holy warrior) and the classic D&amp;D paladin (heavily armed and armoured holy warrior). They are only different in play because the game makes such a big mechanical deal of the difference between a sword (paladin) and a mace (cleric), of the difference between spell-powered miracles (cleric) and innate ability miracles (paladin), and of the differences between their base attack numbers (better for cleric) and their base turn undead numbers (better for paladin).Similarly for ranger vs fighter. If tracking, exploring, endurance, etc were just part of background, or part of the WIS and CON stats, then a ranger would just be a fighter with appropriate background and stats. It's only because these are called out via particular mechanical subsystems that we have conceptual space for the ranger as a distinct class.Of course, once the classes are in play, at least some elements of the fanbase then try to construct archetypical differences, and so we see attempts to explain how a ranger is different from a fighter in story terms, or a cleric different from a paladin in story terms.&nbsp; I think this is part of what people mean when they say D&amp;D has become its own self-referential genre.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6197113, member: 42582"] I think there is another relevant factor that needs to be considered - namely, mechanical details. As far as archetype is concerned, there is not much to choose between the classic D&D cleric (heavily armed and armoured holy warrior) and the classic D&D paladin (heavily armed and armoured holy warrior). They are only different in play because the game makes such a big mechanical deal of the difference between a sword (paladin) and a mace (cleric), of the difference between spell-powered miracles (cleric) and innate ability miracles (paladin), and of the differences between their base attack numbers (better for cleric) and their base turn undead numbers (better for paladin). Similarly for ranger vs fighter. If tracking, exploring, endurance, etc were just part of background, or part of the WIS and CON stats, then a ranger would just be a fighter with appropriate background and stats. It's only because these are called out via particular mechanical subsystems that we have conceptual space for the ranger as a distinct class. Of course, once the classes are in play, at least some elements of the fanbase then try to construct archetypical differences, and so we see attempts to explain how a ranger is different from a fighter in story terms, or a cleric different from a paladin in story terms. I think this is part of what people mean when they say D&D has become its own self-referential genre. [/QUOTE]

Verification