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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5740152" data-attributes="member: 48965">Okay, maybe there was a reason... <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=";)" />    A cleric could be if he worshipped a god connected to warriors in some way but he could just as easily be a scholar if he worships Ioun, or a trickster if he worships Coyote. That said...  In all honesty I would, for the purposes of this discussion, refine the paladin archetype to be that of holy knight... since paladins (even in 4e) are suppose to be martial combatants imbued with divine power who hold themselves to higher ideals. So you are correct their archetype isn't holy warrior, while in a more general sense that probably is the archetype of the cleric where warrior is not taken literally but in a more spiritual sense. Now, let's compare two examples of class descriptions from 4e... The Ranger...As a ranger, you possess almost supernaturally keensenses and a deep appreciation for untamed wilderness.With your knowledge of the natural world, youare able to track enemies through nearly any landscape,using the smallest clue to set your course, evensometimes the calls and songs of beasts and birds.Your severe demeanor promises a deadly conclusion toany enemy you hunt. The FighterRegardless of your level of skill and the specificweapons you eventually master, your motivationsdetermine who you defend and who you slay. Youcould be a noble champion who pledges your bladeto gallant causes, a calculating mercenary who caresmore for the clink of gold than praise, a homelessprince on the run from assassins, or a blood-lovingthug looking for the next good fight. Now, honestly... you don't see a difference in these two descriptions? Honestly? IMO, the fighter would seem to be a much broader archetype than the Ranger as presented here... and if I wasn't into the whole woodland and nature thing I wouldn't want to be a ranger just to be a competent or even good archer.  I think my example of the wizard and warlock as well as the ranger above show that at least in the more recent editions, this isn't true. There is an archetype very much implied in the narrative surrounding classes...  A highwayman is not an archetype, neither is a swashbuckler... they are more specific concepts of particular archetypes... Even the knight is not really an actual archetype because he's a specific concept (culturally based) within the warrior archetype. I'm not really familiar with AD&D but I would assume this was because we had more general mechanics, but it's only a natural evolution that as the game mechanics (skills, kits, feats, abilities, etc.) used to represent specific concepts became more precise and less general... the classes that represent the archetypes would become less encompassing and more precise (sometimes bordering on concepts in and of themselves).  One AD&D example I am aware of is kits... you could only take certain kits if you were of a certain class... this definitely argues for classes representing more than just generic packages of abilities. These kits were a way of customizing a general archetype into a more specific concept under it and were rarely generic in their benefits.  I think you're talking about more specific concepts here as opposed to higher level archetypes. I would also argue that PrC's were in no way archetypical or intended to be but instead were suppose to be used by the DM to customize concepts that existed in his particular campaign.  I agree, they were created to represent more and more specific concepts of archetypes by giving you more specific mechanics as I said above... and this is even more apparent in things like PrC's, builds, backgrounds, etc. The classes however are still the overarching, high-level archetypes that your character is under.   A character is not an archetype... there is no Conan archetype, or Mouser archetype... what they are is a variation on a particular archetype... maybe even two or more archetypes combined... because the totality of a character does not equal archetype and I have never claimed it did.   Fair enough... though you originally claimed they were an order of paladins. If you did just that and I was in your camapign I would assume they were all paladins...  Just as a side note... you do realize in sourcebooks of nearly every edition they did exactly the opposite of this... there were actual orders of paladins, or rangers and characters had to be of that class to join.  Uhmm, I was talking about on a meta game level. Earlier in your post you stated that they were an order of paladins you were renamming... well apparently if there are avengers this isn't true.   I'm not sure what your point is here... you were free to create holy warriors of varying faiths, and like in the real world and literature, they had differing armaments, beliefs, knowledge, etc. You took an archetype (the holy warrior) and through customization made it a more specific concept.  I'm not sure what this has to do with our larger discussion. His concept apparently still used the holy assasin archetype... the trappings and specific concept still fit under that unbrella and then he refined his concept through selection of abilities and fictional trappings... what does this have to do with attaching combat role to the archetypes in the game?  All of this is irrelevant, since the question was about how to represent a swashbuckler in 3.5... there was a swashbuckler class plain and simple. this is of course ignoring the fact that the swashbuckler isn't an archetype in and of itself either.   A character concept =/= archetype.   I've provided enough examples from the current edition that you're either willfully ignoring them or have made up your mind and are not open to the possibility... either way I'm not going to keep posting examples. Again Conan and Hercules aren't the same guy but they fall under the warrior archetype (though some would argue Conan is mixture of the warrior and rogue archetype). You keep missing the fact that archetypes are not the sum of a character... they never have been they are the overarching umbrella(s) that characters fall under.   No it's just not how you chose to look at it... and for some reason you assume that because you didn't look at it that way... it's not that way that anyone else ore even the majority of D&D players have or did. I honestly think you are wrong.</blockquote>

Verification