Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5763900" data-attributes="member: 54877">Maybe.&nbsp; Huge caveat -- it is a suspicion, a little bit of logic with a lot of intuition. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Take these &quot;points&quot; in no particular order:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Conan is the prototypical D&amp;D fighter.&nbsp; Besides his strength and skill with weapons, his distinguishing characteristics are &quot;barbarian&quot;--and later skilled pirate and sort of skilled ruler.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are close behind.&nbsp; The Mouser is at least half rogue (probably along with Cugel the Clever, the inspiration for &quot;use magic device&quot; in 3E).&nbsp; But even Fafhrd is cat quick and capable of real thievery.&nbsp; It is only being big, strong, and good with bow and sword that makes us think of him as a &quot;fighter&quot; at all.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">And so on, with many literary fighter examples.&nbsp; (Pick any you want.)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Weapons are like perception skills and gold pieces in many fantasy games.&nbsp; Everyone wants them at least a little, and often need them to function.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">I keep coming back to Dragon Quest, where weapons are separate, and the &quot;Military Tactician&quot; profession (the DQ equivalent of &quot;class&quot;) is more about directing fights than necessarily being the best warrior.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">If rangers, barbarians, paladins, etc are in the game and present, and have the option to be good with weapons (via class or feats or whatever), what is the niche of &quot;fighter&quot; that needs to be protected?</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">If that last one doesn't make any sense, stat the Fellowship of the Ring in 1st ed AD&amp;D. terms.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A niche defined needs to be narrow enough to leave room for other niches, but broad enough to be worth defining as a class (i.e. it will get used significantly).&nbsp; Maybe the &quot;fighter&quot; is really supposed to be a &quot;weapon master&quot;.</li>
</ul>I'll think of 20 more after I hit submit.&nbsp; But maybe that gives a sense of what I mean.&nbsp;To a lesser extent, one could make the same objections to wizard, cleric, and rogue (roughly in that order of importance, too).&nbsp; After all, &quot;cleric&quot; in D&amp;D is such a mishmash, with different gods imposed haphazardly on top.&nbsp; And it is not uncommon for people to want &quot;enchanters&quot; or &quot;conjurers&quot; specialists instead of broad wizards.&nbsp; One of the power problems with wizards has always been the scope of their powers.&nbsp; Rogue is probably the first class to be true to a niche--especially in its first &quot;thief&quot; incarnation.&nbsp; What did &quot;rogue&quot; do to the &quot;thief&quot; to make it more palatable?&nbsp; Added weapon ability.&nbsp; However, my suspicion is that if weapon use is picked up elsewhere, &quot;thief&quot; works again, &quot;cleric&quot; becomes nothing but &quot;priest of a god&quot;, and &quot;wizard&quot; becomes a jack of all trades arcane loremaster, to fit the name.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5763900, member: 54877"] Maybe. Huge caveat -- it is a suspicion, a little bit of logic with a lot of intuition. :) Take these "points" in no particular order: [LIST] [*]Conan is the prototypical D&D fighter. Besides his strength and skill with weapons, his distinguishing characteristics are "barbarian"--and later skilled pirate and sort of skilled ruler. [*]Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are close behind. The Mouser is at least half rogue (probably along with Cugel the Clever, the inspiration for "use magic device" in 3E). But even Fafhrd is cat quick and capable of real thievery. It is only being big, strong, and good with bow and sword that makes us think of him as a "fighter" at all. [*]And so on, with many literary fighter examples. (Pick any you want.) [*]Weapons are like perception skills and gold pieces in many fantasy games. Everyone wants them at least a little, and often need them to function. [*]I keep coming back to Dragon Quest, where weapons are separate, and the "Military Tactician" profession (the DQ equivalent of "class") is more about directing fights than necessarily being the best warrior. [*]If rangers, barbarians, paladins, etc are in the game and present, and have the option to be good with weapons (via class or feats or whatever), what is the niche of "fighter" that needs to be protected? [*]If that last one doesn't make any sense, stat the Fellowship of the Ring in 1st ed AD&D. terms. [*]A niche defined needs to be narrow enough to leave room for other niches, but broad enough to be worth defining as a class (i.e. it will get used significantly). Maybe the "fighter" is really supposed to be a "weapon master". [/LIST]I'll think of 20 more after I hit submit. But maybe that gives a sense of what I mean. To a lesser extent, one could make the same objections to wizard, cleric, and rogue (roughly in that order of importance, too). After all, "cleric" in D&D is such a mishmash, with different gods imposed haphazardly on top. And it is not uncommon for people to want "enchanters" or "conjurers" specialists instead of broad wizards. One of the power problems with wizards has always been the scope of their powers. Rogue is probably the first class to be true to a niche--especially in its first "thief" incarnation. What did "rogue" do to the "thief" to make it more palatable? Added weapon ability. However, my suspicion is that if weapon use is picked up elsewhere, "thief" works again, "cleric" becomes nothing but "priest of a god", and "wizard" becomes a jack of all trades arcane loremaster, to fit the name. [/QUOTE]

Verification