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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pickaxe" data-source="post: 3590334" data-attributes="member: 10812">Certainly, you could design a fantasy RPG where you eliminate classes altogether. In this genre, though, players want to take on the roles of classic archetypes, like the strong hero with the big pointy stick, or the mysterious wizard who harnesses magical power. But I'm not suggesting eliminating classes; I'm asking questions about how classes end up in the D&D game, and how our perception of their reasons for existence changes."Rogue archetype" is not the same as "rogue class." So, you are leaving out another relevant question: Does the rogue class capture the "rogue archetype" that people want? What I'm suggesting is that it doesn't capture the myriad archetypes that people associate with the "rogue", but they are a fixture in D&D that we've come to expect, as with any "sacred cow".Here's another way to look at it. What if the game replaced the rogue with the scout from Complete Adventurer? The scout essentially has all the rogue functionality, so no one could complain that there's been some loss of party function. Would we still ask for our rogues back; if so, why? Because the scout doesn't give us the chance to be the Gray Mouser? Or because rogues/thieves have been a part of D&D from the very beginning, and we just want them in the game? If the answer is more in the vein of the former, then rogues are an essential part of the game, providing an expression of a vital archetype. If the answer is along the latter line, then rogues are a sacred cow.So, the point of this thread is that the possibility that such a central D&D class might be a sacred cow occured to me only recently, and I wanted to see if others could convince me one way or the other.--Axe</blockquote>

Verification