Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6500824" data-attributes="member: 92511">I think the broader question of whether there is a &quot;core four&quot; anymore/post-3e is a valid one. And viewed through that context, the answer is no. Because it is no more &quot;core&quot; than any other class. There are other archetypes that do what it does...what any class can do.THis is part of the reason I do not care for those editions and prefer the &quot;class groups/sub-class&quot; structure of pre-3e D&amp;D.At the root of the game, you have a non-caster (Fighter/&quot;Fighting Man&quot;) and a caster (Magic-User). Then came the Cleric in his Van Helsing glory. The original &quot;Fighter/Magic-user&quot;: able to hold his own, using armor and weapons, when the frontline needed support and possessing/able to handle supernatural/esoteric lore and ability. In either capacity, the Cleric was the first &quot;Support&quot; class.The thief, then, similarly, came about as a different sort of non-magical, skill-based &quot;mundane&quot; Support class.So the proto-typical party, from which would branch hundreds of other archetypes, those &quot;core&quot; four classes involve the front line fighter, the back line magic-user, and two support characters: one magical that can survive the front line, one non-magical but still capable from the back (whether by ranged weapons, &quot;sneak attacks&quot; -which typically involved hitting hard and getting back out of the way, and/or getting that locked trapped exit open so we can get the frel out of here before the monsters butcher us all!). &nbsp;In that context, the cleric's role has not changed or been diminished...and if one is to say there is a &quot;core four&quot; then, yes, the Cleric still warrants its place among them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6500824, member: 92511"] I think the broader question of whether there is a "core four" anymore/post-3e is a valid one. And viewed through that context, the answer is no. Because it is no more "core" than any other class. There are other archetypes that do what it does...what any class can do. THis is part of the reason I do not care for those editions and prefer the "class groups/sub-class" structure of pre-3e D&D. At the root of the game, you have a non-caster (Fighter/"Fighting Man") and a caster (Magic-User). Then came the Cleric in his Van Helsing glory. The original "Fighter/Magic-user": able to hold his own, using armor and weapons, when the frontline needed support and possessing/able to handle supernatural/esoteric lore and ability. In either capacity, the Cleric was the first "Support" class. The thief, then, similarly, came about as a different sort of non-magical, skill-based "mundane" Support class. So the proto-typical party, from which would branch hundreds of other archetypes, those "core" four classes involve the front line fighter, the back line magic-user, and two support characters: one magical that can survive the front line, one non-magical but still capable from the back (whether by ranged weapons, "sneak attacks" -which typically involved hitting hard and getting back out of the way, and/or getting that locked trapped exit open so we can get the frel out of here before the monsters butcher us all!). In that context, the cleric's role has not changed or been diminished...and if one is to say there is a "core four" then, yes, the Cleric still warrants its place among them. [/QUOTE]

Verification