Is "skilled guy" a good character class?
- Thread starter Vespucci
- Start date
Just as a point in fact, many believe Indiana Jones was based, in part, on the real life stories of a number of archaeologists and adventurers, such as:
Beloit College professor and paleontologist Roy Chapman Andrews
Italian archaeologist and circus strongman Giovanni Battista Belzoni
Yale University professor, historian, and explorer Hiram Bingham III, who rediscovered and excavated the lost city of Machu Picchu, and chronicled his find in the bestselling book The Lost City of the Incas in 1948.
University of Chicago archaeologist Robert Braidwood
University of Chicago archaeologist James Henry Breasted
The British archaeologist Percy Fawcett, who spent much of his life exploring the jungles of northern Brazil, and who was last seen in 1925 returning to the Amazon Basin to look for the Lost City Of Z. A fictionalized version of Fawcett appears to Jones in the book Indiana Jones And The Seven Veils.
British archaeologist and soldier T. E. Lawrence.
The Northwestern University anthropologist, professor and adventurer William Montgomery McGovern
Frederick Albert Mitchell-Hedges, who along with his daughter, is one of the first Westerners to find one of the legendary Crystal Skulls (hoax or not)
German archaeologist Otto Rahn
So, there are "Indy"-esque types out there...but they're about as rare as can be.
Honestly? It depends heavily on the system in question. The most general answer I can think of is that rock-paper-scissors is one of the core forms of a balanced system. In warrior/wizard world, who wins in a fight? Then why be the other choice? And how much work is it to keep the two choices balanced but distinct?
Alternatively, while D&D often seems to have overpowered wizard problems, the expert can validly serve as the generalist. When wizards are frail and spells slow to cast, the wizard is in danger on a battlefield. Then the warrior is the master of the combat domain, the wizard is master of non-combat situations, and the expert passable at both. That's a distinct role in life. The wizard turns invisible, the expert merely hides in the shadows, but can still sneak past.
Or you can view the expert as the rule-breaker. The warrior is "supposed to" bash down the door and kill the orcs. The wizard has a collection of specific spells (either to kill the orcs, or confuse them, or whatever). The role of the expert is to find an unexpected solution. Disguise yourself as an orc. Scale the tower. Steal enough riches to hire an army. Then the warrior is the strong one, the wizard the smart one, the expert the cunning one.
Indeed, themeing should be a sufficient raison d'etre. You have the jocks, you have the nerds, and you have "the rest". You can expand out the class list to include the bard, the rogue, the monk, the herbalist and the monster trainer. Expanding the list is never hard. But if you want to reduce the list to the most basic, you end up needing a misc. category. Can you say "heroic/supernatural?" sure. You could also say "adventurer" and be done with a single class. The defense of the expert is that the third category makes the classification of enough literary heroes/tropes easier to warrant its existence
Alternatively, while D&D often seems to have overpowered wizard problems, the expert can validly serve as the generalist. When wizards are frail and spells slow to cast, the wizard is in danger on a battlefield. Then the warrior is the master of the combat domain, the wizard is master of non-combat situations, and the expert passable at both. That's a distinct role in life. The wizard turns invisible, the expert merely hides in the shadows, but can still sneak past.
Or you can view the expert as the rule-breaker. The warrior is "supposed to" bash down the door and kill the orcs. The wizard has a collection of specific spells (either to kill the orcs, or confuse them, or whatever). The role of the expert is to find an unexpected solution. Disguise yourself as an orc. Scale the tower. Steal enough riches to hire an army. Then the warrior is the strong one, the wizard the smart one, the expert the cunning one.
Indeed, themeing should be a sufficient raison d'etre. You have the jocks, you have the nerds, and you have "the rest". You can expand out the class list to include the bard, the rogue, the monk, the herbalist and the monster trainer. Expanding the list is never hard. But if you want to reduce the list to the most basic, you end up needing a misc. category. Can you say "heroic/supernatural?" sure. You could also say "adventurer" and be done with a single class. The defense of the expert is that the third category makes the classification of enough literary heroes/tropes easier to warrant its existence
Tovec
Explorer
I actually did know that Indiana was based on a lot of different people. I also have read a number of profiles on those people. Last I checked they didn't fight the Nazis (or communists) or risk their lives intentionally. Even the rarest (outside the true crackpots) don't often go without support into a tomb. Yes they may find it by themselves but they try to avoid being reckless. That was my main point.
Indiana Jones is as much made up as James Bond. Yes there may be a real basis for Bond but I doubt very much the original is as independent and wide ranging as the fictional character.
Of those, Frederick Albert Mitchell-Hedges is probably the closest to the Indy profile...though I wouldn't bet against Belzoni. Professor & Circus Strongman? REALLY?
Tovec
Explorer
I like this comparison to rock scissors paper.
Rock is the fighter, the guy who hits for big damage and can usually soak that damage. They are the brutes on the front lines. They can hit any target that challenges them (rogue) and do more damage. They are weak against the plethora of options a wizard receives however.
Scissors is the rogue, an expert with many talents who specializes at getting in and out with minimal difficulties. If hit by the fighter they are going to feel it so they try and go around. They are also good against the wizard due to that pesky evasion and hide/move silently/stealth.
Paper is the wizard (at least in 3.5) that flattens themselves out and can cast any spell they need to win. If attacked by a rogue they are in trouble (sneak attack) but they can lay into a fighter with a more than fair chance of winning.
Making it a three type or element race balances the system quite well. Rock burns grass, grass defeats water, water quenches fire - the old pokemon system. If it were just a two - say fire vs water - then the system breaks down because it relies on the one with massive firepower. This goes doubly so for fire vs fire.
Of course everything I said above breaks down when you throw in a fourth (or more) type because something is going to be overshadowed, copied, or made redundant.
kitcik
Adventurer
Are you serious? Have you actually played D&D?
It's an interesting theory / analogy re: how the designers might've wanted it to work, but...
Fighter (melee) = rock
Rogue (skills) = scissors
Wizard (magic) = nuclear bomb
My daughter hates it when I use the nuclear bomb in R/P/S.
I have...and I've noticed a moderate level Thief, unseen by a high-level Mage, can damn near kill his target with his alpha strike. The "invisible thief" has almost become a cliche for softening up the back-row PCs.
No disrespect, but any rogue who hunts mages that hasn't planned for his prey's abilities is not playing up to their intelligence score or the kinds of contacts they should have. For every measure, there is a countermeasure. With magic, of course.
Similar Threads
D&D (2024)
Party Balance?
