Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7184645" data-attributes="member: 4937">5e carries over the baggage that 3e carried over that IMO highly limits the archetypes that the core classes can serve.1) 'Paladin' - Works fine for lawful good champions, and ok for martial good champions generally, but doesn't serve well the concept of divine champions generally.  Compare with the sort of mechanics used to generalize clerics.2) 'Barbarian' - Works fine for northern European beserkers, and ok for primitive warrior cults generally, but doesn't serve the broad concept of warriors powered by esoteric art and raw emotion more than martial study and weapon expertise.3) 'Druid' - Works fine for Celtic animist priests, and ok for some sorts of Northern European animists, but doesn't serve well the broad category of shamans, witch doctors, witches, from various other diverse real world myths.4) 'Ranger' - Although inspired by Tolkien's 'rangers', the class has become its own self-referential archetype that is now vary widespread in fantasy.  However, it is tied to all sorts of baggage owing to its history, and the modern ranger is more like an assassin with extra baggage than it is like Tolkien's homeless wandering wilderness wise Knights.  The general archetype of a character specialized in slaying particular sorts of creatures particularly with ranged weapons is poorly served by the ranger that is still trying at some level to be a spell using protector of the wilderness.   Being tied to spell-casting is one of the classes biggest limitations, and limits it from being a generic 'hunter of X' (demon hunter, undead slayer, assassin, bounty hunter, dragon slayer, etc.).My preference is that Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and Druid be archetypes of much broader base classes.Additionally, there are several archetypes D&D has just never addressed or done well:5) 'Everyman Hero' or 'Folk Hero': A good deal of the characters in literature are fairy tale heroes who aren't marked by notable prowess and arms or by easily defined superpowers, but by their luck (whether natural or the favorable supernatural patronage), their creativity and cunning, and their natural ability and aptitude.   One real mark of characters of this sort is their ability to overcome more obviously powerful archetypes despite obvious advantages, their unexpected successfulness in a pinch, and their ability to contribute to success despite obvious potency.  All the hobbits are in Tolkien's legerdemain are this sort of character, as is the 'valiant tailor' of Grimm's fairy tale (and most other protagonists).   My favorite example though is Saka from the Avatar the Last Airbender cartoon.  Racial paragons are also this sort of character.6) The Truly Skilled - You can't play Sherlock Holmes in D&D.  I've seen several valiant attempts, but they never quite get there.  The Factotum in 3.X could be considered to be an attempt at this, but again, doesn't quite work.  The trick is implementing a character that is mostly about their out of combat ability, in a game that is often so heavily about combat.  I'm inclined to think that if the Warlord/Marshall isn't just a smart charismatic fighter, then it is either this class or a smart charismatic fighter multi-classed into this class (or vica versa). 7) The Mutant - This is a class marked by being not quite human (or not quite whatever race they are).  Essentially, this is a customizable racial class where your advancing traits are marked by actual changes in your form as you evolve into whatever you are evolving into.   Sorcerer in D&D overlaps with this class - sorcerers owe their magical power to being not quite human - but The Mutant is marked less by overt spell-power and more by actual physical changes.  Many modern super-heroes are of this sort, and they show up increasingly in fantasy fare.</blockquote>

Verification