D&D 5E Fivethirtyeight Article About D&D Race and Class Combos
Tony Vargas
Legend
Who wrote that article? Guy Gisborn? Jonathan Lakland?
Alexemplar
First Post
D&D's version of the Ranger and Paladin rely greatly on their sorcery/supernatural abilities. I don't think anyone wanting to make an Aragon, Robin Hood, and King Aurthur character is particularly keen on their supernatural power- and definitely not in the form of charms and spells ala Gandalf or Morgan la Fay.
I'm also challenging the idea of modeling Hercules as a Barbarian as his going crazy and murdering his family was very out of character for him. He spent the entire rest of his story trying to atone for it. I'd hardly use a class that reliably flies into a murderous rage nearly every day to represent him.
Aside from the ones already mentioned, most western fantasy readers/players are also familiar with Gilgamesh/Enkidu, Persus, Achilles, Odysseus, Finn McCool, Baldur, Beowulf, Samson, Link, John Snow/Brienne of Tarth/the Hound/the Mountain/Gray Worm etc.
And before we get into the, "but they had divine aid/demigod blood so they should be Paladins/Clerics..." argument, we should note that this is the case for most everyone in old tales.
Merlin and Morgan la Fay were of supernatural heritage. As was Circe in Greek myth. Sorcerers in the Hyborian age get their powers from bargains with dark powers and become inhuman in the process. Magic and sorcery in nearly all cases was the work of supernatural beings in one form or another. And of course there's good ol' Gandalf- the poster child for what in D&D is a human secular arcane wizard- who was actually a nigh immortal spirit sent by a more powerful spirit of goodness and just happened to be in human form, but could have fallen to become a firery horned fiend- aka an angel. If you really want to get pedantic about it, Tiefling/Aasimar Sorcerers and Warlocks (and to a lesser extent, Clerics) are much better representations of most any well known spellcaster than D&D's Wizards are (save Harry Potter et al).
Last edited:
TrippyHippy
Hero
Yes and no. A lot of the spells used by either class are actually in tune with what could be defined in mundane abilities. If a Ranger uses Cure Light Wounds, you could interpret as magical or just simply as a nature-based healing ability ("here - put this herb on the wound to heal better). Same with other 'spells'.
When D&D was busy converting 4E to 5E, they integrated a lot of the various abilities and 'powers' for each Class into the collective spell lists. Pretty much every Class, baring the Barbarian (who still get some spirit-based abilities as options), can access 'spells' at some point. I choose to interpret them in different ways depending on Class.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Fine as an average, but experience tells me some classes are multi-ed way more than others - and that's what I want to know about.
Lanefan
Alexemplar
First Post
Telling the person who wants to be Aragon/Gimli/Legolas that the spells they're using are not really spells doesn't help a whole lot when they use pretty much all the same mechanics as spells. Not any more than telling someone that throwing around alchemist fires, healing potions, and using the Arcana skills makes them Gandalf.
After all, that's why they've introduced non-spellcasting variants of the Ranger in 3rd and 5e and removed it from the class entirely in 4e. Although the change in 4e was met with protests because a lot of people believed explicit spellcasting (and not just refluffed) spellcasting to be an integral part of the Ranger's identity to the point where they brought it back in Essentials and re-affirmed it as a core feature in 5e.
I imagine the expansion of spells into all classes is a result of them wanting to give non-spellcasters more abilities, but not wanting to give them "powers"/action points/stunts as a core mechanic. When they do, they're often met with resistance.
That pretty much leaves you with nothing but skill checks and spells. They tried expanding the Superiority Dice mechanic into more Fighter sub-classes so they could had more utility, but that too was dialed back after negative responses.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Aragorn is a Ranger - in fact, he's the archetypal Ranger on whom the (only true version of the) class is based. Gimli and Legolas are both Fighters, though very different within the class. Pippin and Merry work their way into becoming Fighters as the story goes along. Boromir is a Fighter. Faramir, Eowyn, and a bunch of others are all Fighters.
Except Barbarian should not be a class, but a race. Conan is a Barbarian Fighter.
Yes, as are most of his Merry Men; though Little John is a Fighter.
Can't speak to Wu Xia or Eregon but King Arthur's knights are the archetypal Paladins.
D&D novels gave us Drizz't and for that alone should be ignored for all time.
No, a Fighter...and a very high level one at that. He's not even Barbarian as a race - he's half-Human, half-deity.
Lanefan
Last edited:
Well, according to statistics 'vanilla' is the most popular ice cream flavour, and the 'Forgotten Realms' the most popular D&D setting...EDIT- And, of course, the boring, bland Fighter is by far the most popular. Because of course it is. Which just goes to show that the internet is not always representative of actual play.
If something is slightly tolerable for everyone, there's a good chance it will end up the most popular choice overall compared to more polarizing options.
Alexemplar
First Post
Something that can be said of D&D in general.
Li Shenron
Legend
My favourite aspect of this statistics is that the MOST popular class is ONLY TWICE as popular as the LEAST popular class. It might sound like a huge difference, but it is not. This tells me that all 5e classes are good solid design.
Similar Threads
