What Archetypes Deserve Classes in a Fantasy Game?

[Merlion]

ok lets see if this works.
Ahh ha...thanks Josh, I needed that.
Hmm the bottom is still a little funky wonder what I did wrong..

 

[johnsemlak]

Also, for what it's worth, I don't consider the cleric to be a fantasy archetype in the least. It's a D&D-ism pure and simple. At it's most basic levels, fighter, rogue and wizard are the only true basal archetypes. But again, unless those archetypes are represented by classes that are extremely flexible, or served by multiple classes that explore different facets of the archetype, I would hardly recommend shrinking to three classes.

That may be logical if you consider D&D to be inspired by fantasy literature.

But isn't the process 2-way, in that D&D influences fantasy and vice-versa?

I would certainly agree that a true 'cleric' was rare in pre-D&D fantasy. But divine magic is so imbued with my vision of what fantasy is that I would consider it a fantasy archetype for me.

Just a thought--I wonder how Joseph Campbell would have voted on this poll

 

[Desdichado]

For many I'm sure that's true. After a relatively brief stint with D&D when it was at the peak of it's popularity in the early 80s, though, I really haven't played it until 3e came out. I also haven't really read all that many D&D novels. To me, certainly, fantasy is a much bigger thing than D&D and D&D-isms that aren't represented in other forms of fantasy really stick out. I'm sure others that have been more immersed in D&D than I have been over the years though, feel very differently.

 

[Merlion]

I dont I actual designed a class to replace the cleric for if I ever run games..

 

[johnsemlak]

In a different direction, how core-fantasy of an archetype is the rogue, really (outside of D&D)? OK, there are some examples (the Grey Mouser, Ali Baba...I'm sure they're are more), but for every one of them there are 10 sword-wielding champions and another 3 axe/hammer swinging heroes. There's not one rogue type in LotR, IIRC (I can't remember how much Bilbo the 'burgler' actually uses rogue skills to help the party in TheHobbit, but there's more rogue inspiration there, I suppose).

I think you could argue that fantasy rogues are no more different from the basic fighter class than are rangers such as Strider. Even The Grey Mouser is afterall described as one of the greatest swordsman ever.

 

[Mercule]

As an aside, I did like the swashbuckler, summoner, and pirate class ideas...

Eh. I tend to think that the swashbuckler and pirate are awefully similar and could be combined into a single class. I'm torn, though on whether this should be a separate class or not. The Fighter class seems like it _should_ embody all weapon-master types, which a swashbuckler definitely is. Still, the Fighter falls flat on making a swashbuckler competitive because it's a heavy armour and high skill concept, while a swashbuckler is low armour and extreme skill concept. Multiclassing to Rogue adds a bit in the intelligent, low armor category, but a swashbuckler really needs the pure BAB -- if anything, they should be _better_ than a tank.

I definitely don't like the Paladin as a core class. It's just entirely too narrow in focus for a base class, IMHO. I'm all for a Paladin PrC, but not a base class.

I would like to see a summoner, though. I've tried to create one a couple of times in 3E and they are simply not effective most of the time, and they are lacking a bit in "feel".

The cleric could go, so far as I care. Its magic doesn't seem divine at all. And the warlike stance of the armor, especially, comes at the cost of making an unarmored cleric suboptimal, even if it is more appropriate to the deity. I'd like to see some sort of mystic class replace it.

I have an interest in seeing a "wildlands" class that could branch equally well into the Ranger or Barbarian class as a PrC. The archetypes, IMHO, are just too close. Both are tough wilderness warriors that could give a Fighter a good run through a combination of hardiness, non-weapon skills, and odd tactics.

I definitely don't want to see classes go away. IMHO, classes and levels are the ultimate sacred cow of D&D. Once they disappear, it cannot be D&D. I am interested in seeing some flexible classes, however, that could fit multiple concepts.

I think that things like BAB, HD, saves, and spell slots/points need to be set in stone for each class. Anything else opens the system up to too much play and undermines the "infrastructure" too much. Whatever is done to increase flexibility of the classes must be done without making these "swappable" or "buyable". Of course, that means I hate the idea of using nothing but a class-build point system.

 

[Remathilis]

I have to agree--the core classes present doesn't really cover all the bases. However, I'd prefer a shrinking & generalization of the core classes rather than an expansion & specialization of them--Palladium Fantasy, and to a more horrific extent (IMHO) Rifts, have oodles & oodles of Occupational Character Classes (OCCs), which (IMHO) are horrible when it comes to balance--despite the roleplaying impusle to play a Vagabond instead of a Glitter Boy, Apok, or Cosmo-Knight, the poor old Vagabond will die off soon due to the heavies that the GM sends to deal with his Mega-Damage dealing & taking party members.

My fear of the "over specializing" of D&D (and to a lesser extent, any Tolkenisque flavored pesudo-midieval setting) is balance issues. For example, lets make a knight, duelist, and archer core class. The knight might have good access to heavy armor, good hp, and melee and horseman feats. The duelist might have som UCD, a way to improve thier AC without armor, etc. The archer would have access to great bow attacks, bonus damage). However, are these three equal? Is it better than one generic fighter class (as D&D does now?) Is it necessary to have them as seperate classes?

By the same token, do we need a sorcerer, wizard, and witch class? Does one have more prerognative to be a class than another?

 

[Merlion]

I definitely don't like the Paladin as a core class. It's just entirely too narrow in focus for a base class, IMHO. I'm all for a Paladin PrC, but not a base class.

I feel this is more a problem of the PHB, must be Lawful Good, Sir Galahad paladin. the idea of the Champion/Crusader etc is a very viable archtype.

The cleric could go, so far as I care. Its magic doesn't seem divine at all. And the warlike stance of the armor, especially, comes at the cost of making an unarmored cleric suboptimal, even if it is more appropriate to the deity. I'd like to see some sort of mystic class replace it.

I designed a class which I call the Mystic as a sort of replacement for the Cleric. i dont think the thread I posted it on is even still up, but let me know if your interested in seeing it.

 

[Merlion]

My fear of the "over specializing" of D&D (and to a lesser extent, any Tolkenisque flavored pesudo-midieval setting) is balance issues. For example, lets make a knight, duelist, and archer core class. The knight might have good access to heavy armor, good hp, and melee and horseman feats. The duelist might have som UCD, a way to improve thier AC without armor, etc. The archer would have access to great bow attacks, bonus damage). However, are these three equal? Is it better than one generic fighter class (as D&D does now?) Is it necessary to have them as seperate classes?

By the same token, do we need a sorcerer, wizard, and witch class? Does one have more prerognative to be a class than another?

No, we dont need all of those. But I think they could all coexist. I'm not sure that very specfic combat specialities such as Archer need a seperate class, but I think the Unfettered and Warmain work well as the Agile warrior and the Tank warrior. The standard DnD Fighter makes a nice inbetween...I think they could all coexist.
Same for the spellcasters. Fantasy is full of many different types of practioners of magic. Now of course within DnD the magic system itself makes trying to fit many of those hard between the whole fire and forget thing and the arcane/divine divide and all its baggage. But its still possible. Thats part of why AU works so well...since the system is more flexible it allows for more originality. the wizard and the sorcerer are themeaticaly the same in terms of what they can do...they just do it differently. If they can coexist I see no reason why you cant have a Witch, and some sort of Rune type etc.

 

[Desdichado]

Merlion, one last OT post in the thread; I think you're missing a [/url] tag after Mr. Vimes in your sig.

On topic; I think the Gray Mouser is actually more like an Unfettered than a Rogue, in a lot of ways. And Fafhrd himself has some "thiefy" skills as well.