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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5740101" data-attributes="member: 3887">Low blood sugar? Too much Gawker?   The relationship between class and high level character concept isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be, regardless of edition. For example, a "holy warrior" could be cleric, or a fighter/cleric, too, A ranger could be anything from a hunter (as you say), to an archer or two-weapon fighter, to AD&D's heavily-armored tank with pets (and a fireball or two, if they're high enough level). My answer is: most classes don't really have specific fiction attached to them (though a few come close, like the paladin and monk).For example, in older editions like AD&D and 2e, the fighter class could represent anything from a knight to a highwayman to a dashing court swashbuckler. These are all very different roles in terms of the fiction, but modeled using the same class mechanics.  In 3e, with it's more liberal multiclassing rules, it was common to have a single character archetype represented using a mixture of classes and PrC's. Frankly, it was the 3e framework that put the nail in the coffin of classes-as-archtypes, in favor of classes as packages of abilities which players combined to create their (potentially archetypal) characters. I mean, the sheer (eventual) number of 3e classes/PrC's is a good indication they were no longer meant to represent a small number of universal archetypes. In most cases, the designer's didn't. And sometimes they used multiple classes to model a single character -- consider the write-ups for some of the classic fantasy fiction heroes in the old Deities and Demigods; Conan, The Grey Mouser, et al. I'd describe it as a militant religious order, and mention some of the abilities its noteworthy members are known to use.  Nope.I think "avenger" sounds kinda dumb, while "paladin" is a lovely word. Ergo, I have no problem using "paladin" to refer a wide variety a holy wide variety of holy warriors, not just ones who have the exact abilities of the PHB class. And while I like the Avenger mechanics, I'm feel no obligation to use the term in the setting fiction and this hasn't caused any confusion in my group. Back on the 2e era, you had the option to use specialty priests, which could have wildly divergent granted powers, spell lists, permissible arms and armors. Yet they were still all "priests".In the 4e era, our campaign had a character who, mechanically, was a Dwarven Avenger. In the game fiction, he was a Communist revolutionary empowered by something called "dialectical materialism", and claimed his 'powers' where just reason cutting through the bogus, bourgeoisie delusions that permeated his world.   (I mention him to illustrate how a certain... flexibility with regard to tying the character fiction to actual mechanics can be useful. We'd still be waiting for WotC --or for that matter, anyone who wasn't us-- to publish an official philosophically-powered Communist revolutionary class). Eventually. And it wasn't very good. And it certainly didn't stop 3e players from mixing other classes together in order to create an archetypal swashbuckler. For instance, dipping into Ranger for the two-weapon feats, or Rogue for Sneak Attack.BTW... Monte did a much better job at a playable, single-classed swashbuckler with AE's Unfettered.   I'd say this analysis is simply wrong. In pre-3e D&D, you had single classes representing multiple character concepts --unless you'd like to claim that "knight", "pirate", and "swashbuckler" are the same fictional archetype-- and in 3e/Pathfinder, you frequently have multiple classes combined in service of a single concept/archetype. The most you can say is certain classes had more... expected fictions associated with them. The tight correlation between metagame class and in-game fiction is something you're reading into the rules, not out of. Heck, the 2e class write-ups explicitly list several different kinds archetypal character each individual class can be used for. Both Conan and Hercules are fighters... do they strike you as the same guy, fiction-wise? I'm not trying to critique preferences here, but your description of how D&D has functioned with regard to the relationship between class and concept throughout the editions is inaccurate.</blockquote>

Verification