Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pickaxe" data-source="post: 3590828" data-attributes="member: 10812">First let me reiterate that I'm not arguing that the rogue's *role* is not essential, nor that the rogue's role should simply be removed from the game. The fighter has an essential role that belongs in the game, but his role can be filled by other classes, such as barbarian or paladin. The question is why, when we have these other equivalent classes, we continue to retain fighters in D&D. My argument is that classes remain in D&D not because they can fill roles, but because they are either iconic elements of the game, or they represent archetypes of the genre that draw us to the game in the first place. The skilled swordsman or mercenary or soldier is an archetype that none of us would suffer to be excluded from D&D.But what of the rogue? If we remove the rogue, what archetypes go with it? Many archetypes have been mentioned as linked to the rogue class, but it's not clear that any are unique to the rogue, i.e., they can be expressed by other existing classes, like the ranger or fighter.The quote from Gygax about the origins of the party and its four fundamental roles is very interesting. It makes sense when you consider that the creators of D&D were most familiar with the mechanics of wargames that emphasized the value of combined arms. But note that Gygax is still talking about the origin of the *roles*, not the origin of the classes that fill them. Why aren't the four classes simply Infantry, Medic, Ranger/Spy, and Engineer? The fact that Fighters, Wizards (Magic-Users), Clerics, and Thieves were ultimately what the creators chose indicates that they were looking to archetypes outside of wargames to define the heroes in their campaigns.So, my point is not that rogues are dispensible because their role is (it isn't), it's that rogues may be dispensible because a) their role can be performed by other classes, and b) there are no compelling archetypes that you can only get in D&D by playing a rogue.Let me comment a bit on the cleric. Some have commented that clerics are the oddballs here that need to be eliminated because they have no archetypal foundation. I agree that the relationship of the cleric to the game is not as clear-cut as it is for the wizard and fighter, but I don't think they are actually worse off than the rogue. For one thing, their party role is undeniably essential, whereas you can at least consider ditching trapfinding altogether. Second, one shouldn't confuse a cleric's party role (healer) with what they are at least supposed to represent in the game (someone with a connection to the power of the divine).Thus, when looking for the archetype of the cleric, one shouldn't look simply for healers, because the role of the priest is not equated with healing outside of RPGs and their derivatives. Nor should one look at contemporary fiction, because modern storytellers are not writing for polytheistic audiences, nor for audiences who want stories ultimately determined by the actions of gods, rather than heroes. If you look at the cleric, the cleric spell list, and the cleric-related magic items, one can find archetypal inspiration not from fiction but from history and myth. Many cleric spells and magic items come right out of the Bible (e.g., waterwalking, staff of the serpent). We may not always have a robed person with a holy symbol upon which we can pin the archetype, but there are plenty of examples in myth and religion of individuals performing magical acts as agents of the divine.I'm not saying that I couldn't be convinced to do with the cleric what I suggest we do with the rogue, but I think the perceived problems with the cleric have more to do with playing issues (i.e., clerics are boring healers, so let's give them more power) rather than an identity crisis.--Axe</blockquote>

Verification