Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 8196512" data-attributes="member: 7635">I think its also fair to say that the fluff::lore ratio for classes is... inconsistent. Some classes have nearly no lore, others are inseparable. Which is why we get into the argument of what is/isn't a class. On the one side, you have fighter, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard as classes that themselves have almost no lore but are defined by the lore of their subclasses. Wizard squeaks in by the thinnest of lines since its still bound (heh) by the concept of the spellbook, but otherwise has no great thematic link by itself. On the complete opposite are the classes that they themselves have tight lore and the subs are merely flavor: artificer, paladin, warlock, and monk. In the middle are the "connected to the lore, but subs can modify that to a great deal" classes of ranger, bard, barbarian, druid, and cleric. The issue of course is that since each classes connection to the lore is different, you can't apply any overarching rule to them. For example, a fighter, a barbarian, and a paladin are all "dudes with hp and swords" but the fighter is painfully generic (enough so they can represent a bunch of different archetypes like knights, archers, and samurai) the barbarian is focused on a type of warrior (strong and primal warrior) with some wiggle room to include thewy pulp barbarians, Viking berserkers, gladiators, and religious fanatics) while the paladin is wedded to the "holy knight" lore that all you get to pick is the type of knight you are (white knight, green knight, black knight, Dark Knight, etc). It's hard to argue why, for example, Samurai gets a single subclass to represent all manner of (fictional) samurais while paladin gets a full class to do holy knight and given a variety of different types to play. At this point, I think its tradition that carries the core class identities forward. Ranger is a class because people expect it to be. Monk is there because it existed in most editions (all if you count eventual supplements). Were D&D given a clean slate to unbind from tradition, I wonder if some (if not many) of the classic classes would be rolled into meatier subclasses or if the more generic classes would be brought up to at least match the middle-group in terms of "relative backstory" to give fighters or sorcerers more inherent personality without reliance on subclass. Its idle speculation, barring a radical shift in WotC's MO, I doubt the paladin will stop being a class anytime in my lifetime.</blockquote>

Verification