Mike Mearls comments on design

[rounser]

Regardless of the class's name, the class still fills an archetype.

Drill sergeant/cheerleader? It's definitely not a core D&D archetype, doesn't fit in an adventuring party.

Then perhaps you need to expand your notion of what fits in an adventuring party.

Or perhaps WOTC should refine theirs. Look, I'd be happy if they just changed the darn name, something without baggage (military or otherwise). It would notch it down one level of "bad" for me.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

A D&D party is not a mobile war or army, nor is it political or prone to "declare war".

Haven't we already covered this? DnD isn't just about dungeon romping, dragon slaying or module play. It covers all aspects; class names are mechanical definitions of role-playing abstractions.

Parties can be entirely political, a mobile army and certainly "declare war" (Birthright and a bevy of home brews out there). Haven't you ever played in a war-themed or even a deeply political DnD role-playing game? Do your gaming groups address each other in the party by third person and call each other by their class names? Have you ever even role-played beyond an arch type before?

I'm convinced you're purposefully being obtuse, because you know that you are completely wrong.

 

[rounser]

I'm convinced you're purposefully being obtuse, because you know that you are completely wrong.

LOL, "teh troof" comes out! Wow, you've got me there! How could I possibly disagree with your opinion, when it's obviously "teh troof"?

No, I think I'm just locking horns with those who have a more...disingenious vision of what D&D's core is, and should support. It's not your fault. You've been groomed to think like this by 3E's warblades and mystic theurges and the like, most probably.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

LOL, "teh troof" comes out! Wow, you've got me there! How could I possibly disagree with your opinion, when it's obviously "teh troof"?

No, I think I'm just locking horns with those who have a more...disingenious vision of what D&D's core is, and should support. It's not your fault. You've been groomed to think like this by 3E's warblades and mystic theurges and the like, most probably.

Crack open your first edition Dungeon Master's Guide about world building. Hit up the second edition while you're at it in the Dungeon Master's Guide with the robed wizard opening a suit of bronze doors, specifically on the section for world and campaign building. Pull out old Greyhawk boxed sets regarding campaigns settings that were meant to be ran during the Greyhawk Wars. Hell, root through old brown and grey boxed editions of Forgotten Realms. Pop open the blue boxed edition of Birthright. For that matter, take a look at the old manilla folder-colored Chainmail rules that were the very foundation of the DnD game.

Do that for yourself, then revisit the thread. That's your core, buddy - dungeon romping, war settings, castle and keep management, leading soldiers, owning land, mercenary corps companies, wartime games and fighting monsters en masse. It's everything beyond the straightjacket in which you'd like DnD to be constrained within.

Cheers~

 

[rounser]

Do that for yourself, then revisit the thread. That's your core, buddy - dungeon romping, war settings, castle and keep management, leading soldiers, owning land, mercenary corps companies, wartime games and fighting monsters en masse. It's everything beyond the straightjacket in which you'd like DnD to be constrained within.

If what you're implying made sense, then sergeants, generals, marshals, legionairres, sappers, cavalry riders, soldiers, marines etc. would all be core classes. And they're not. For very good reason, because your vision of D&D is just as skewed as mine.

Conan may lead an army at the end of his career, but he's not a king without one. Same with the "warlord". And armies generally don't belong in dungeons (except perhaps the underdark), and tend to fill up the corridors and get in the way of the PCs, generally. Wilderness? Okay. Urban? Erm...maybe if there was a siege on...

I'm glad you're not in charge. Or are you, having joined in August this year?

 

[BryonD]

A rose by any other name...

No one is debating the smell of the rose. The quality of the other name is what is in question.

Just as the rose still smells sweet, this feat is mechanically fine no matter how flawed the name. Calling a rose rat droppings doesn't change it's smell, but it is still dumb and would be a bad way to clearly communicate.

 

[Remathilis]

Name doesn't fit a D&D adventuring party, doesn't mean what WOTC wants it to mean, and is also a poor choice because the word is still in common use, meaning something else entirely.

Using that definition, we need to get rid of "Barbarian" (someone who does not speak Greek), "Cleric" (Muslim Holy Man), "Druid" (a member of a pre-Christian religious order of ancient Celts), "Monk" (still used in reference to Shaolin Practitioners), "Ranger" (refers to a member of a military organization or Texas State Police) "Knight" (people today are still knighted, including rock stars and politicians), etc...

 

[rounser]

Using that definition, we need to get rid of "Barbarian" (someone who does not speak Greek)

Ask someone off of the street about barbarians, and they'll think of something like the Goths, or a fantasy barbarian like Conan (bingo! desired effect!) most probably.

"Cleric" (Muslim Holy Man)

Not in common use. Someone off the street would go "what's that?" at this word or confuse it with clerk, unless they were in religious circles maybe. Rising in awareness thanks to terrorism, islamism and Iraq media coverage, perhaps. D&Dism in it's game form.

"Druid" (a member of a pre-Christian religious order of ancient Celts)

Not in common use, but indeed a well known word, and very mythologically evocative. Don't see it in the headlines except perhaps as re-enactments, very little known about them in the real world.

"Monk" (still used in reference to Shaolin Practitioners)

In a D&D context, I think the default is to think of Benedictine monks, which makes this one a weird one. Occidental association, oriental flavour. A D&Dism most definitely.

"Ranger" (refers to a member of a military organization or Texas State Police)

Tolkienism, but you're right, still sees contemporary use. D&Dism, not ideal.

"Knight" (people today are still knighted, including rock stars and politicians), etc...

Archetype too strong for that to matter, but correct. Core class? Would be a good replacement for the term "paladin", IMO (which I'm surprised didn't make your list).

 

[Umbran]

And that's where we end the reasoned debate for this thread.

Your snark is not appreciated. Please don't bring it in here again. Thank you.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

"Cleric" (Muslim Holy Man)

Cleric is the English word for "holy man of unspecified denomination". It is not restricted to muslims. Since nobody knows what to call various types of muslim priests (and since muslims swear up and down that they don't have priests) we call them clerics.