Nobody knows the classes like I do!

[JamesonCourage]

I'll disagree with the base assumption of the post, but only because it has no qualifiers about levels. I'm perfectly okay with level 1 being basically a competent but average person (in my game, level 4 is the "average settled adult", so level 1 is below that). Sure, the Fighter will end up being the "God of Steel and Punishment made carnate" at some point, when he's a high enough level. I just don't see the classes as the way you've presented them as a constant through all levels.

Then, of course, I don't fully agree with some of your descriptions (Sorcerer, Bard, Barbarian, etc.). But hey, that's cool. There's room for both of our takes on it. As always, play what you like

 

[Hodag]

That OP is perfect. It shows that the strict locking of perception of the classes to the fantasy asthetic is the wrong way to go about it.

 

[Ettin]

Modern references? In MY D&D?

*runs away screaming*

 

[Empath Negative]

That OP is perfect. It shows that the strict locking of perception of the classes to the fantasy asthetic is the wrong way to go about it.

Precisely...


Consider my comments on the fighter. I wasn't saying Michael Jordan was a pastmaster at murdering people.

Instead what I was saying was that your level 1 Fighter has the same gift for fighting that Michael Jordan has for basketball. Like if Michael Jordan's skill at the game of basketball were somehow reconfigured to be a talent at slicing peoples faces off... he'd be a fighter. Not a warrior, not a combatant... a Fighter.

And that's what sets the Fighter apart.



I'm of the assumption, wrong or right... that every single dungeons and dragons character, save for those designed expressly not to be... have a hint of the Epic to them. Even the first level fighter is just *better* at what he does than anyone else

That trace of "epic" takes different forms for different classes. Whereas the Fighter is a natural gift for fighting... the barbarian has been adapted by evolution and hardship in such a way that in comparison to others, he too carries a trace of the epic.

 

[Umbran]

Instead what I was saying was that your level 1 Fighter has the same gift for fighting that Michael Jordan has for basketball.

Ah. I think you'd get a whole lot more people on board if you said that a 10th level fighter were like that, or something. You're likening the low-end of the D&D spectrum to the top end of real-world humanity. That's apt to be a miss for many.

 

[Herschel]

So a 1st-level Fighter is Christian Laetner?

 

[the Jester]

Well, I'm glad you have a good solid image of the classes that works for you.

Presuming that it works for everyone else too is a bit much, though. And presuming you have some kind of inside track, some special knowledge of how the classes are or should be, is a larger bit much.

 

[Herobizkit]

Well, consider that in 4e, the Player Characters are supposed to be a cut above the 'regular' folk by design.

So:
A level 1 'Michael Jordan' would be a rookie, or even a MJ in college ball.
A level 1 'Katharine McPhee' would be a Bard P), but fresh out of music school.
A level 1 'Bill Nye' would have just finished his PhD...

And so on...

The OP isn't 'wrong' and I see where's he's going with this.

 

[Empath Negative]

the desire was to describe the internal aspect of the player classes that causes them to be what they are. When you roll a 3d6 you're actually setting your character up to be superior to the average human being. Simply rolling 3d6 results in ten or eleven on most rolls. This means that the average pc is "special" compared to the average of everyone else (which results in tens across the board).

The PCs are special in the way the great figures throughout history have been special. I wanted to encapsulate and help define what it was that made them so.

The Fighter example is among the ideal because it's so pointedly on. The Warrior, who effectively does EXACTLY what the Fighter does... can never surpass the fighter in terms of raw skill. The Fighter has more feats, as well as fighter only feats. A twentieth level warrior with the same stats and equipment as the fighter would get his ass handed to him on almost every day of the week.

Most guys on the basketball team could be equated with warriors... Michael Jordan would be equated with the Fighter.

This also is easily shown with the Barbarian. You can spend years and you'll still never be as good as Michael Phelps is at swimming, yet swimming takes relatively little talent. It's more raw "ability" than anything else. That's what makes the barbarian.

Seriously, take a good hard look at how the barbarian is designed and it's clear he's supposed to have good strength, dexterity, and constitution... and makes greater use of those ability scores than other classes, even other fighting classes.

Increased dexterity is more useful to the barbarian than the fighter because of his medium armor restriction and fast movement.

Increased constitution is more useful to the barbarian than the fighter because his constitution determines the length of his rage.

Increased strength is more useful to the barbarian than the fighter... and this is the thinnest of justifications... because the barbarian gains maximum effect of his special abilities from two handed weapons. Whereas the base fighter can go any direction, the barbarians special abilities benefit most when used in conjunction with two handed weapons.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Most guys on the basketball team could be equated with warriors... Michael Jordan would be equated with the Fighter.

This also is easily shown with the Barbarian. You can spend years and you'll still never be as good as Michael Phelps is at swimming, yet swimming takes relatively little talent. It's more raw "ability" than anything else. That's what makes the barbarian.

Can't this easily be explained by level? Most guys on the court are level 1-2, while Michael Jordan is level 6? Wouldn't this explain it just as easily, without the mandatory "PCs are special" being tacked on from level 1?