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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4073340" data-attributes="member: 2067">Coulda, woulda, shoulda, DOESN'T. I mean, now we're arguing archetype fiddly bits, which is a certifiably insane debate to have, but I can do a little, my SAN score can take it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Remember, this is 4e. Everyone's pretty good at every skill, even if they're not specifically trained. And even if we assume he's trained in all of this, it doesn't mandate a rogue (and kind of contradicts it in places, like the Diplomacy example). Lying, athleticism, and picking pockets and locks is still something that every 4e character can do, and that other classes (warlocks? rangers? warlords?) or multiclasses could do. The movie doesn't make a real division between a "surprise attack" (combat advantage? just first in the iniatiave?) and a lethal vital shot from a skilled marksman and a high-damage attack roll or simply a dramatically appropriate flare. In the game of "pin the archetype on the class," this is far too fiddly of a bit. We don't know how they're going to do out-of-combat abilities, and that's basically the one place where Jack is different than the vast majority of characters. If he has a class, it's a non-combat-specific class. If he has a role, it's a dramatic role, not a combat role. This, by 4e, makes him more of an NPC, and, indeed, I could see him in 3e as an Expert pretty easily (maybe with a dash of monk or barbarian thrown in), though even that wouldn't be very good. Swashbuckling adventure movies aren't the fantasy medieval tactical meat grinder that D&D is. What Jack has is an archetype, and a genre, and the former depends on the latter to give it context. His genre is pretty different from D&D's baseline, so it's not very surprising that his archetype isn't immediately obviously parallel to a class. Now, I think D&D will give nods to that genre, and so it will have a place for that archetype. It's just not going to be in the combat zone, which is the only place where "class" really matters. For swashbuckling pirate movies, the "combat zone" is pretty much the same for everyone who is a protagonist or antagonist, there's no real specialization. Everyone knows how to use a sword and a gun (and sometimes something more exotic), run around the battlefield, do neat stunts, and use the terrain to their advantage. Some people know magic, but it's dark voodoo and out-of-combat ritualistic stuff, not a combat niche. Everyone fights the same way.I'd say the Jack Sparrow type in 4e might entirely have to do with skills, which is why even in 3e, I'd say he's more of an Expert and less of a Rogue.Odly enough, I think Jack's archetype is best encapsulated in an ALIGNMENT, not in a class or even in his specific skills. That is, it's all about the role he plays, not the dice he rolls. Or we could go play 7th Sea. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification