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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 785179" data-attributes="member: 537">The cavalier's archetype is whatever the cavalier's designer wants it to be, nu? Some might even say that the cavalier's archetype is "guy on a horse", eg whoever made the PrC in S&F.Funny you should mention the archer, because one of the first variant classes that appeared in Dragon was the archer (and the archer-ranger). In fact, these classes also make an appearance in Ambient's _Three Arrows for the King_ pdf, recently released.There's no doubt that the schticks mentioned can be handled by the fighter class. A lot of them have to do with roleplaying, and how the group handles relationships between the PCs anyway. However, I think there's no reason not to make a new class in D&D, if the niche it fills is sufficiently distinctive, it fits into most campaigns, and there's enough player demand for it.In d20M, classes are little more than collections of special abilities and feats, packaged for convenience. There's nothing particularly distinctive about a "fast hero" or "strong hero". This is counter to the situation in D&D, where classes also have a strong identity. For example, a barbarian is basically just a really meaty fighter with one special "rage" ability. Why make a barb a separate class, then? Possibly because (issues of nostalgia aside) the niche a barb fills is one that appeals to enough players to merit its creation. In flavour terms, there's more meaning attached to being able to call your character a "barbarian", as opposed to a "fighter" who just happens to have a rage ability.Yes, in-game there's no reason why a fighter with a rage feat couldn't also call himself a barbarian, but it's all about drawing players into the setting. If the rules can provide a mechanism for doing that, then it's all good, I say.Similarly for the paladin, or knight, or cavalier, or whatever else you want your "knight in shining armour" or "leader of fighting men" to be. There's no reason why a knight couldn't be represented as a straight fighter, if all you want is an uncomplicated ruleset. However, the niche it fills is sufficiently distinctive, and one that appeals to enough people, that I think it's worth creating a class just for it.</blockquote>

Verification