Very good, Scribble... short, but... pointless.
What do the D&D classes mean to you?
- Thread starter wedgeski
- Start date
Very good, Scribble... short, but... pointless.
JohnSnow
Hero
It's not "realism," so much as being genre-appropriate. If you decide that every character who is capable with a bow is a ranger, then what's a fighter? Certainly, any character who shows off stealth or wilderness survival skills must also be a ranger. What that means is that the only characters left to be rangers are the heavy-armored meatshields. But are you okay with this list:
Because Hercules is almost as famous for his skill with the bow as he is for his great strength, he must be a ranger. HERCULES!
Because Conan never goes berzerk (ergo not a barbarian), possesses wilderness survival skills, and doesn't wear heavy armor, he must be a ranger (scout).
Fafhrd is a Conan clone who is also an excellent shot with a longbow, ergo he's a ranger (scout).
Lan? Clearly, he's a scout too.
Robin Hood? Duh, but probably a Hunter.
Little John? Well, despite his rather prodigious strength and being the archetypal tough guy, John doesn't wear armor and can use a bow almost as well as Robin, ergo he too is a ranger. Scout or hunter is up for debate.
Legolas? He uses a bow, so obviously he must be a ranger - hunter probably.
Aragorn's probably a Scout.
And on, and on, and on. I guess Gimli the dwarf and his clansmen from The Hobbit might be fighters.
It seems that you're fine with a definition of "fighter = heavy melee class." I, and many others, are not.
dkyle said:
Yeah. That's one of the design decisions of 4e that makes no sense to me. But I'm also bothered by the notion that the only character who can bea fighter is:
Hero who wears heavy armor, has no stealth or survival skills, and only fights with melee and hurled weapons.
That kind of distinction means that 90% of the fighter heroes in fantasy fiction aren't actually fighters, but rangers. No wonder WotC is having trouble with the fighter class, they've defined it so narrowly that no character in fiction can be a single class fighter.
And that's just dumb.
Last edited:
Crazy Jerome
First Post
The "archer" is a good concept with which to find fault lines--because people's conception of "archer" are all over the place, and sometimes based on wildly divergent views of archers in history and fantasy.
In the sense of "guy who can pick up a bow and do some good with it," fighters have made pretty decent archers in every editions--including 4E. And when they didn't, it was as much about Dex as anything else.
In the sense of "crack shot that is the medieval fantasy equivalent of Navy Seal high on magic Legolas juice and would only deign to use a knife in an emergency," fighters aren't so hot. And they really can't be, without prestige classes or other "bolt-on" mechanics, unless you just decide that "fighter" equal "martial guy" and everyone else has to be substandard to that.
When Monte did Arcana Evolved, he split the "fighter" concept into "warmain" and "unfettered". The former was brute strength, heavy weapons, heavy armor. The latter was a more skirmish-oriented character with Dex, who nevertheless was quite competent in melee combat (though not nearly as able to take a lick as the warmain). You could make a very good "archer" who didn't have any ranger baggage, quite easily. What you couldn't do was one that totally sucked at melee.
Several people complained bitterly about this. "Where's my Archer class?" they hollared. I kept thinking, "Did you guys read any history? Any remotely plausible fiction? Any fantasy with typical archers? Try Arthur Conan Doyle's 'White Company'? Have any concept of what it means to be an archer?" Archers run out of arrows. They get overrun. Their bowstrings get wet. The Dark Lord has protection versus every killer arrow. It took me a long time to realize that they didn't want an archer. They wanted Navy Seal Legolas. (And they missed the knife work in the movies.)
In the sense of "guy who can pick up a bow and do some good with it," fighters have made pretty decent archers in every editions--including 4E. And when they didn't, it was as much about Dex as anything else.
In the sense of "crack shot that is the medieval fantasy equivalent of Navy Seal high on magic Legolas juice and would only deign to use a knife in an emergency," fighters aren't so hot. And they really can't be, without prestige classes or other "bolt-on" mechanics, unless you just decide that "fighter" equal "martial guy" and everyone else has to be substandard to that.
When Monte did Arcana Evolved, he split the "fighter" concept into "warmain" and "unfettered". The former was brute strength, heavy weapons, heavy armor. The latter was a more skirmish-oriented character with Dex, who nevertheless was quite competent in melee combat (though not nearly as able to take a lick as the warmain). You could make a very good "archer" who didn't have any ranger baggage, quite easily. What you couldn't do was one that totally sucked at melee.
Several people complained bitterly about this. "Where's my Archer class?" they hollared. I kept thinking, "Did you guys read any history? Any remotely plausible fiction? Any fantasy with typical archers? Try Arthur Conan Doyle's 'White Company'? Have any concept of what it means to be an archer?" Archers run out of arrows. They get overrun. Their bowstrings get wet. The Dark Lord has protection versus every killer arrow. It took me a long time to realize that they didn't want an archer. They wanted Navy Seal Legolas. (And they missed the knife work in the movies.)
Savage Wombat
Hero
I cannot BELIEVE the lack of support for wibble shown on this poll.
Wibble is one of the key facets of class-based role-playing.
Wibble is one of the key facets of class-based role-playing.
JonWake
First Post
The core of the disagreement is one of thinking that 'fluff' and 'crunch' are separate, and one of thinking that the sole purpose of the numbers are to codify the fluff.
I don't think you'll ever get these two sides to meet. Interestingly, one is based solely on DnD 4e. In the previous 30 years of the game, a fighter was a master combatant, and the mechanics flowed from that premise. Sometimes not well. The Assassin killed people for money or ideals, and the mechanics existed to support the concept.
With 4e (and it really started with 3e), you have players treating the classes as grab bags of mechanics with no association to the concept. It frankly sounds like people don't really want to play a game with classes in the first place.
And that's totally fair-- I went through a good 15 year period of hating all class based systems. 3e is pretty unabashedly an attempt to chip away at a class based DnD.
I don't think you'll ever get these two sides to meet. Interestingly, one is based solely on DnD 4e. In the previous 30 years of the game, a fighter was a master combatant, and the mechanics flowed from that premise. Sometimes not well. The Assassin killed people for money or ideals, and the mechanics existed to support the concept.
With 4e (and it really started with 3e), you have players treating the classes as grab bags of mechanics with no association to the concept. It frankly sounds like people don't really want to play a game with classes in the first place.
And that's totally fair-- I went through a good 15 year period of hating all class based systems. 3e is pretty unabashedly an attempt to chip away at a class based DnD.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
You've got this exactly backwards. The thought that classes could be a mechanical package (not a "grab bag" but some kind of mechanically useful part made out of smaller parts) was there from the beginning. Not with everyone, it is true, but it was there. 3E and 4E is where it finally became pursued enough that the rest of the D&D world noticed.
There is nothing inherent in the idea of class-based games that says "class" = "archetype". Of course, nothing says it can't, either. That's a design decision.
I have no problem with classes as a design idiom. They're a good way to organize mechanics, and keep them balanced. They're good for providing niche protection, which I feel is important in tactics-focused RPGs. Point-buy isn't the be-all, end-all of good RPG mechanics.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
I picked a mixture of theme, playstyle/feel, and set of interesting game mechanics. I didn't pick personality, because people of the same class can have wildly different personalities. I also didn't pick role (in or out of combat) because many classes can fulfill several different roles, depending on the player's choices and tactics. For example, I've seen druids be anything from brutal melee monsters to archers to healers to battlefield controllers. That, and some of the most interest characters are those who defy their class stereotypes and excel in ways they're not "supposed to."
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I actually voted for all of them (well, except Wibble - sorry, Wibble) because all of them either go into a class or come out of it...but the key option isn't listed in the poll yet is mentioned in the first post:
Lifestyle.
When you beat it all down, one's class largely represents and-or determines one's lifestyle; and pretty much everything else grows out of that.
Lanefan
Lifestyle.
When you beat it all down, one's class largely represents and-or determines one's lifestyle; and pretty much everything else grows out of that.
Lanefan
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Classes are both constructs and scopes. They are made of both game mechanics and game content. They are partial determinants of playstyle according to class design interface, have a feel and a sense, have a combat role even if that be "untrained army irregular", and are the "non-combat role" for non-combatant classes - basically everyone except Fighter and its sub-classes.
Classes may also be themes, but only when viewed in relation to other themes. Without some "not this" to the theme class become a singular uniform totality rather than a defining scope.
Classes are not personalities, but performance of them may be challenging to personalities. For example, playing a jailor may be challenging to a kind person. For some, all classes are personality challenges by definition, and could be seen as growth areas or diminishment depending on POV.
Classes may also be themes, but only when viewed in relation to other themes. Without some "not this" to the theme class become a singular uniform totality rather than a defining scope.
Classes are not personalities, but performance of them may be challenging to personalities. For example, playing a jailor may be challenging to a kind person. For some, all classes are personality challenges by definition, and could be seen as growth areas or diminishment depending on POV.
