Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6197162" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think 1st and 2nd edition leaned strongly toward the paradigm that class and profession where the same thing.  First edition characters presumably knew what their class was and would describe themselves in world as a member of their class.   Dragon magazine in the 1e era was filled with various classes for very specific professions: entertainer, jester, mariner, bandit, alchemist, merchant, sentinel, duelist, etc.   If the profession happened also to be archetypal, well so much the better, but it wasn't essential.   Part of this is that the template provided by the thief class for expanding skills strongly leaned toward a fixed list of skills which were gained in a fixed way.  So, for example, examine the design of the Mariner class for 1e with its list of sailing related skills.  This assumption that all skills and abilities were tied to class lead in one instance to a book of mundane profession classes to explain skills not part of a heroic class: cook, blacksmith, carpenter, etc.Based on what I've been doing with my house rules though, I lean much harder to class is an archetype supporting many professions.   I think this is an evolution of a trend that began with 2nd edition kit classes, where many different professions were treated as minor variations of the same archetypal class and which was continued in the design of 3rd edition.  Once you begin to establish a skills system and a feat system so that not every ability has to be a class ability, then you are able to move toward a class as archetype mode.  Of course, 3e simultaneously worked against this structure by introducing the prestige classes which often were very specific to a profession or specialty, but its worth noting that the prestige classes ultimately provoked my house rules.   I disliked them so much I immediately banned them, but then found I needed to invent new rules to cover the cases where abandoning the prestige class left a hole in what you could make as a player.I as I conceive things now, your class might be hunter, but your profession could be hunter, huntsman, fur trapper, woodsman, ranger, warden, scout, gamekeeper, reeve, exotic animal handler, elephant tamer, bounty hunter, or assassin.  In a fantasy setting, you also might work as an itinerant professional slayer of various monsters - undead slayer, dragon slayer, demon slayer, or slayer of werewolves, or you might belong to an elite commando style military unit making your profession 'soldier'.  Or your class might be explorer, but your profession could be sailor, pirate, navigator, guide, caravan guard, translator, surveyor, merchant, archaeologist, teamster, or vagabond. Conversely though, not every member of the listed professions might belong to the class I've just associated it with.   I can see going back to a 1st edition paradigm, but I'd consider it retro, nostalgic, and rather retrograde.  I don't really see why you'd want 400 classes.  In practice, it never quite worked for most players, who when forced into such inflexible frames often rebelled against the very notion of class based characters and started looking yearningly at skill based character generation and advancement.</blockquote>

Verification