What is a 'Fighter'?

[Snoweel]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss your views on the in-game meaning of the various D&D character classes (which are primarily a game mechanics element).

For example, would NPCs in the game world really distinguish a fighter from a warlord from a skilled guardsman? Would they all just be considered different types of swordsmen or warriors?

Obviously a character with warlord levels would likely be more talkative in battle than a fighter but that's not necessarily ther case - there may be fighters (and even warrior-types without any class levels) who spend every combat shouting commands, exhortations and war cries without the mechanical benefits of a warlord.

Would there really be a marked in-game difference in how these various martial-types are perceived?

How about rogues? Not all rogues are sneaky thieves and not all sneaky thieves have levels in the rogue class. Does the term 'rogue' have any in-game meaning beyond its typical use in the English language? I think many D&D rogues would simple be described as 'swordsmen' or even just 'adventurers'.

Likewise the ranger; there's an argument for saying that a ranger is recognisable as a 'woodsy warrior' but are all woodsy warriors classed rangers? Do there even need to be ranger organisations to support a ranger PC? Perhaps the PC ranger is the only character in the entire gameworld that displays that particularsuite of skills, but maybe he learned them from different sources - maybe the PC learnt the twin-sword style from his father, an exile from a (non-woodsy) culture that fights with two swords, but he learned his woodscraft from the old elf who tends the sacred grove in the middle of the city. There may be no other 'rangers' anywhere else in that setting.

Arcane, divine and primal classes provide less ambiguous displays of in-game characteristics (spellcasting, etc) but still the likelihood of individuals being identified as members of a class isn't so cut and dried.

We know that not all priests are clerics, but then what exactly is a cleric? Is it just another type of holy warrior? Could an NPC tell the difference between a cleric and a paladin (and possibly an avenger)? Is their equipment (weapons and armour proficiency) the only reliable indicator?

If clerics are holy warriors, imbued with their god's power, then what are paladins?

And just like with rangers, are there necessarily other 'clerics' and 'paladins' in the gameworld, or could it be that the PC is the only one?

Basically I'm interested to know what in-game meaning character classes have in your game. Have you diverted at all from 4e 'canon'? (And I use the term loosely.)

 

[Umbran]

In games I run, some of the classes are semi in-game concepts. Some, like "druid" and "paladin", have in-world meaning beyond the classes, and those who bear the title in-game also bear the class. Others (fighter, rogue, etc) don't have the same sort of meaning. Anyone who's from a less civilized culture could be called a "barbarian".

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I think that with 4e's attitude that PCs and NPCs do not need to be built by the same rules really grays up how the common folk define classes. An NPC might be a woodsy warrior who uses two swords, but he might not be able to quarry a target. Is he a ranger?

In my game I have an NPC that I frequently refer to as a "Shaman" but I've never given her spirit companion.

I think common folk might be able to tell what power source a PC draws on, but I imagine for most, that about all they know.

 

[deadsmurf]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss your views on the in-game meaning of the various D&D character classes (which are primarily a game mechanics element).

For example, would NPCs in the game world really distinguish a fighter from a warlord from a skilled guardsman? Would they all just be considered different types of swordsmen or warriors?

PC classed people are supposed to be rare to begin with - a Fighter can be identified as a Bandit, a Knight, a Paladin (for a devout but not divinely empowered fighter), a Warrior, a Berserker, a Rake, a Samurai... etc It all depends on the character. The term fighter can easily be used in game to refer to anyone who fights.

Obviously a character with warlord levels would likely be more talkative in battle than a fighter but that's not necessarily ther case - there may be fighters (and even warrior-types without any class levels) who spend every combat shouting commands, exhortations and war cries without the mechanical benefits of a warlord.

Would there really be a marked in-game difference in how these various martial-types are perceived?

Yes and no, it's all on how they present themselves to the world. A rogue could just as easily lead a militia - and a warlord could very easily just be a rank and file swordsman, but who has a great ability to lead people in combat when called to it by life's circumstances.

How about rogues? Not all rogues are sneaky thieves and not all sneaky thieves have levels in the rogue class. Does the term 'rogue' have any in-game meaning beyond its typical use in the English language? I think many D&D rogues would simple be described as 'swordsmen' or even just 'adventurers'.

Or thieves, or spies, or scouts or Barons etc etc.

Likewise the ranger; there's an argument for saying that a ranger is recognisable as a 'woodsy warrior' but are all woodsy warriors classed rangers? Do there even need to be ranger organisations to support a ranger PC? Perhaps the PC ranger is the only character in the entire gameworld that displays that particularsuite of skills, but maybe he learned them from different sources - maybe the PC learnt the twin-sword style from his father, an exile from a (non-woodsy) culture that fights with two swords, but he learned his woodscraft from the old elf who tends the sacred grove in the middle of the city. There may be no other 'rangers' anywhere else in that setting.

There doesn't need to be a ranger organization, and rangers don't need to be natury (beyond the required Nature or Dungeoneering skill) Stick a two weapon ranger next to a two weapon fighter in hide armour and a regular person couldn't tell them apart - though they would have different fighting styles to a trained eye.

The trick with (especially) Martial classes is not to box yourself into the built in concepts of the class - they are just archetypes... and the available builds (especially if you add the martial power books) are toolboxes. Figure out the fighting style you want your character to have, then figure out which class can do that, rather than the other way around. I have a player in the game that I DM that can't get past the 'expected' of the classes. He's still hung up that he can't play a fighter that can shoot a bow (well).

Arcane, divine and primal classes provide less ambiguous displays of in-game characteristics (spellcasting, etc) but still the likelihood of individuals being identified as members of a class isn't so cut and dried.

Educated people can probably tell between the various arcanists, and between power sources, but the average lay-person will call most of them priest (including many primal casters), or mage (including many non arcanely powered people like psions)

We know that not all priests are clerics, but then what exactly is a cleric? Is it just another type of holy warrior? Could an NPC tell the difference between a cleric and a paladin (and possibly an avenger)? Is their equipment (weapons and armour proficiency) the only reliable indicator?

If clerics are holy warriors, imbued with their god's power, then what are paladins?

Equipment and training is a big portion of it - but the other is calling - Clerics are holy warriors of a diety, Paladins are paragons of the beliefs of the faith- embodiments of the god in the world.

And just like with rangers, are there necessarily other 'clerics' and 'paladins' in the gameworld, or could it be that the PC is the only one?

That's really up to you! I tend to like have a number of people that have similar abilities at the PCs, with low-powered clerics relatively common - you're going to see a few at temples in larger cities, though not many of those will have any interest in fighting except in emergencies, and there will be around 5-10 paladins of each deity around the world - so very rare, but enough to have a sort of heirarchy for training and guidance if needed - but they mostly lower level, and will be outshone by a PC paladin in no time.

Basically I'm interested to know what in-game meaning character classes have in your game. Have you diverted at all from 4e 'canon'? (And I use the term loosely.)

Classes have no inherent meaning to the 'in-game' world I run, though the titles are sometimes used (ie a swordmage is called a swordmage by people who know about swordmagery, a warrior, a gish, a mage etc by others) and there aren't a lot of people who even follow (directly) PC class practices exactly around the world.
Also just because a man is called a Wizard doesn't mean he knows all the cantrips and can cast magic missile - Maybe he can only perform a couple rituals and mage hand?

 

[Ed_Laprade]

The 4E class names remind me of the old level names from 1E and such. A Fighter is someone who fights. Period. A Barbarian is someone from an uncivilized area. Period. In short, I don't care at all for their naming conventions... but I'm stuck with it. (When I actually get to play, anyway, which isn't that often. So it's hardly a big deal.)

 

[Wik]

We tend to look at classes as "Ability packages" and let the NPCs and PCs declare "titles". For example, in the group I GM...

The Minotaur Two-Weapon Fighter is generally just referred to as "The Minotaur"... occasionally he gets described as a former gladiator or pit fighter.

his old Eladrin fighting companion (now an NPC) is currently the "Captain of the Guard", though he was generally seen as "the Leader" when he adventured (he was a Warlord).

The Drow Artful Dodger Rogue is usually referred to as a drow, though occasionally she is a huntress. Meanwhile, the Halfling Brutal Scoundrel Rogue (who shares some of the same powers!) is generally seen as a sneaky sailor, or a swordswoman.

The Shadar-Kai Bard (in my campaign, Shadar-Kai are half-breeds of Drow and Eladrin, since Drow and Eladrin are the same race - a Drow can change into an Eladrin, and Vice Versa, depending on political views... and Shadar-Kai are those caught in between) is usually seen as a mobile fighter with some vocal magic... who is also an alchemist. He was never referred to as a "bard"... he's seen more as a "rogue" than the two rogues are!

The only character that is seen as a "Paladin" is the dragonborn Paladin, although a lot of NPCs refer to him as "knight", when they refer to him at all (generally, people notice he's a dragonborn first, and a paladin second).

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's all down to what they're wearing, how they communicate, body language, and so on.

Of course, if someone's toting a bunch of death-dealing tools, they are probably going to be seen as someone who's ready to use them. So, a soldier, mercenary, or whatever else, depending.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

IMC, a class is usually a metagame concept, little more than a mechanic-- Wik's "ability packages" comes close to this idea, I think.

A monastery is full of monks, but it may well be that not a single on of them has a level in the "monk" class. Instead the place will house fighters, clerics, sorcerors, commoners, wizards, experts, paladins, rangers and so on, depending upon each monk's personality, occupation, convictions, etc.

A few class names unfortunately have some cultural baggage in most campaigns-- druid, paladin, monk, maybe cleric and wizard-- but it's fairly straightforward to neutralize that. Sometimes, I'm even tempted to just refer to "combat class #2" or "spontaneous caster #1" and the like.

 

[Jack7]

By method maybe, by purpose possibly not. Surely not if it were me.

I think a lot though depends upon the nature of the observer, and the nature of the observed. For instance someone in military service or who has such a background or is interested in the subject knows the difference between a Marine Corp sniper and a Naval gunner.

But the general public may or may not know these sorts of general (or even specific) differentiations.

So every soldier may just be a soldier to many.
To at least some though - they would understand the difference.

The same with any fantasy world. You'd have those familiar with what they speak, and those who are familiar with such differences in only the very most general sense (because in many fantasy settings the dissemination of knowledge, especially specialized knowledge, will be very restricted compared to our society - no TV shows about Special Forces for the general public to watch).

Then again even those with specialized backgrounds (those in specifically dangerous occupations) rarely speak of such things casually and you can easily see why. Who would want to advertise specific capacities to the general public and lose the advantages you'd otherwise naturally possess through shooting off your mouth carelessly? If I were a Ranger or a Wizard or a Thief or anything of that ilk I'd certainly not necessarily dress the part and I'd never proclaim the fact outside of a trusted group of associates and employers. In my off hours I'd be as bland as crustless white bread.

Personally it makes me cringe to think of anyone walking into a bar and saying, "Here I am, a thirty-second level Sword Marshall Inspiring Warlord (or whatever they would be called) looking for work."

If you had any kind of enemy worth his salt you'd justifiably wake up dead that way. And if I had a partner who talked or acted that way I'd cut him loose and let him get his own undertaker.

I'd keep what I was and how I operated and what my capabilities were to myself. If somebody else were interested in exactly what I could do and exactly what I was then they could pay for the privilege or figure it out the hard way.

There's no particular reason for me to assume that any fantasy world would be any less dangerous than our real one. And even in this one I got no reason to paint a target on myself, or to let anyone else do that just for giggles or ego.

As far as most people are concerned I'd show em only what they needed to see, and I'd tell em only what they needed to know. I'd save the real shop talk for the buddies I knew I could bank on.

To everybody else I'd just be the guy who keeps funny hours. Or I'd be the guy who was anything other than what I really was.

 

[S'mon]

IMC NPCs generally aren't 'classed', and they use the class names generically, as we do IRL, not to refer to particular classes. So a warlord is a guy with an army, a Wizard is an arcane caster - possibly just a ritual caster, etc.