Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6104102" data-attributes="member: 82106">What makes you think you know what was in the minds of the designers of 4e better than anyone else, lol? [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] clearly listed a number of characters that OBVIOUSLY, without even a moment's thought, match up quite well to the Avenger. The mere fact that these types appear again and again in literature indicates that there is a fundamental archetype there. The fact that we can ARTICULATE it proves that it has distinct identity.Maybe not, so say you. I agree it would be a waste to design an entire class JUST so you could make one character using it, and you'd be much better to make a class that can serve a variety of characters. That doesn't make niche classes WRONG, it just makes them niche. Given the popularity of the Avenger class in 4e it seems to me it is broad enough to be a class.Again, I totally disagree. SPECIFICALLY in 4e the notion is that NPCs are NOT associated with a class, that classes are tools used to create a PLAYER CHARACTER around an archetype. NPCs are supporting cast. ONLY the PCs have classes. Thus the priests who run temples are probably mostly just NPCs without stat blocks, who might become minions if necessary, or possibly even CCs or whatever, in which case they may evince some divine powers sort of like a PC cleric (who is nothing like them in social role, he has no temple, instead he's a unique crusader, the guy who plunges into the dark between the points of light, totally different). Military Officers are almost certainly (in the standard pseudo-dark-ages setting) hereditary ruling caste members, nobility. They MIGHT also be combatants with stat blocks and some powes, which might be similar to a warlord or fighter (or could be different). The same with all these other types. Most 'wizards' are old guys who study musty tomes in libraries and don't have class levels at all. Maybe they can cast some rituals? Maybe they can even manage a combat spell or two if they happen to be good. Of course there ARE potent NPCs, worthy enemies, and stout allies. They STILL aren't PCs, they're elite or solo 'monsters' with thematic powers. Stat blocks which the DM is free to and encouraged to modify as-needed during play. These characters may be intended to fill the same sorts of world-roles as PCs (IE they maybe rival adventurers, mighty wizards, etc) but they are mechanically nothing like PCs.Go to the back of the 4e DMG and read through the Town of Fallcrest you find there. Show me EVEN ONE character in that town that has class levels. There are none. In fact MOST of the NPCs aren't even given stat blocks, they are just described in RP terms. They have goals, personality quirks, relationships, etc suiting them to interact with the PCs, provide plot hooks, etc, but you aren't supposed to fight them. The few that you CAN fight, the bully, the rogue, the retired adventurer, etc have no classes. Notice that the town wizard and town priest don't even rate stat blocks at all, nor does the town's ruler, Lord Protector Markelhay. 4e simply doesn't work this way and PC classes ARE NOT and need not be designed to serve as NPC templates. Again, once we remove the notion that classes are templates that describe everyone in the world your argument pretty much falls apart. There are no warlords or avengers without a party. In a given setting the PC is unique, each one is a special snowflake that exists nowhere else, a hero with a story and a destiny. NPCs are totally different.</blockquote>

Verification