NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9257321" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, that's how I see it. In D&D class is simply a tool that is used to divide PC protagonists into different archetypes and attach rules to generating them which insure that each archetype is somewhat distinct and can function in ways that are appropriate to the sort of fiction that the player is signaling by saying "I'm a wizard." They want to cast spells, give them spells! You don't, usually, give the fighter spells because A) he didn't ask for them, and B) it muddles up the distinctions between archetypes. NONE of these considerations are relevant to NPCs, and 'class' is not a 'thing' in the fantasy world itself, at all. I think it gets a bit fuzzy in that it would make perfectly good sense for a guy walking down the street to assume your mail-clad dude sporting a large axe is an expert in melee combat (and possibly draw other cultural inferences). He might then refer to you as a 'fighter', but in terms of how the fiction 'works', there's nothing transgressive about such a character deciding to cast Fireball! PC fighters won't have that option, but it isn't inherently 'wrong' or 'impossible', and an NPC could easily have that ability. I think TSR, in it's material, didn't much explore that in terms of stock NPCs, but I always took that as more "hey we're busy pumping out modules and this is good enough." vs someone thinking it was some sort of violation of some 'law of nature.' 2e with kits, 3e with its limitless MCing, and 4e with its powers and MCing and modularity of stat blocks all subvert the idea to one extent or another (and I'd note that OA definitely nibbled around the edges with PCs too).</blockquote>

Verification