Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7184930" data-attributes="member: 29398">Note some quotes below are out of sequence, to avoid some repetition.These tie together.&nbsp; The knight-in-shining-armour archetype hasn't had a decent run out since 1e's Cavalier.&nbsp; Paladin tries, but both the alignment restrictions and the religious aspect doom it.&nbsp; There's a gap here, and Cavalier fills it nicely.Barbarian - as I've been saying forever, it seems - shouldn't be a class at all.&nbsp; It should be a sub-race of Human, much lo=ike Wood Elves are a sub-race of Elf.Change the class name to &quot;Nature Cleric&quot; and see how those all look.&nbsp; Pretty much covers them all...The Aragorn self-sufficient hardy woodsman archetype, once the foundation of the Ranger class, has sadly been abandoned - to the point that now, ironically, it represents a big enough gap that a new class could fill it.&nbsp; I'd call that new class Ranger, and replace everything currently appearing under &quot;Ranger&quot; with it.You could do this sort of thing pretty well in 0e-1e-2e, maybe even 3e.&nbsp; But 4e and 5e - particularly 4e - have such a huge gap between 'commoner' and '1st-level character' to make the everyman-hero archetype difficult if not impossible to reproduce.&nbsp; This one's not fixable by adding a class; it needs instead a few extra &quot;levels&quot; added in between commoner and 1st-level in order to work.While a valid concern, this one would be hard to implement and keep even remotely balanced at low level; as Sherlock-Holmes-like skills aren't the sort of things one learns quickly by adventuring but would have learned slowly and thus already had before 1st level.The other example of this kind of archetype that D&amp;D simply does not do well is James Bond.&nbsp; I've had players try (and I've tried myself, sort of) to model Bond in D&amp;D and it just doesn't stand up, in that you need a high-charisma fighter-thief with a ridiculous array of skills and knowledges - to work, it'd need to start with an 18 in every stat except wisdom!&nbsp;Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7184930, member: 29398"] Note some quotes below are out of sequence, to avoid some repetition. These tie together. The knight-in-shining-armour archetype hasn't had a decent run out since 1e's Cavalier. Paladin tries, but both the alignment restrictions and the religious aspect doom it. There's a gap here, and Cavalier fills it nicely. Barbarian - as I've been saying forever, it seems - shouldn't be a class at all. It should be a sub-race of Human, much lo=ike Wood Elves are a sub-race of Elf. Change the class name to "Nature Cleric" and see how those all look. Pretty much covers them all... The Aragorn self-sufficient hardy woodsman archetype, once the foundation of the Ranger class, has sadly been abandoned - to the point that now, ironically, it represents a big enough gap that a new class could fill it. I'd call that new class Ranger, and replace everything currently appearing under "Ranger" with it. You could do this sort of thing pretty well in 0e-1e-2e, maybe even 3e. But 4e and 5e - particularly 4e - have such a huge gap between 'commoner' and '1st-level character' to make the everyman-hero archetype difficult if not impossible to reproduce. This one's not fixable by adding a class; it needs instead a few extra "levels" added in between commoner and 1st-level in order to work. While a valid concern, this one would be hard to implement and keep even remotely balanced at low level; as Sherlock-Holmes-like skills aren't the sort of things one learns quickly by adventuring but would have learned slowly and thus already had before 1st level. The other example of this kind of archetype that D&D simply does not do well is James Bond. I've had players try (and I've tried myself, sort of) to model Bond in D&D and it just doesn't stand up, in that you need a high-charisma fighter-thief with a ridiculous array of skills and knowledges - to work, it'd need to start with an 18 in every stat except wisdom! Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification