Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6282410" data-attributes="member: 7635">[Off-topic Rant in 3..2...]This is a weird sticking point for D&amp;D. Class has equally been considered archetypes (fighter, magic-user, or rogue are descriptive and can apply to a wide-range of professions and people) and a tangible occupation (cleric, thief, paladin, druid, ranger, and bard are all classes that define a certain job or role). Some straddle both (monk and barbarian, for example, are archetypes that border on profession, or at least very narrow archetypes). Even the Iconic Four (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief) straddle the line between being archetypal and professional. If you asked them all what they do, the wizard and thief would state their class as a profession, the fighter would give some background (knight, mercenary, soldier) and the cleric might go either way depending on the nature of religion in the setting. For a long time during the &quot;Next&quot; playtest, debate kept raging over whether certain classes &quot;deserved&quot; to remain classes. My observation was that most people who argued FOR reducing the number of classes often wished to remove the Occupational (and narrow archetype) ones, while those who favored a larger number of classes didn't wish to see these classes get rolled into another. (A good example was the Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard:Mage debate). Oddly, I kinda wish the archetypal classes (fighter, rogue, kinda cleric, mage) were all replaced with more &quot;professional&quot; classes (knight, warrior, thief, assassin, priest, crusader, summoner, necromancer, evoker, etc) and D&amp;D officially move to &quot;your class IS your profession&quot; mode, but I don't see that happening.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6282410, member: 7635"] [Off-topic Rant in 3..2...] This is a weird sticking point for D&D. Class has equally been considered archetypes (fighter, magic-user, or rogue are descriptive and can apply to a wide-range of professions and people) and a tangible occupation (cleric, thief, paladin, druid, ranger, and bard are all classes that define a certain job or role). Some straddle both (monk and barbarian, for example, are archetypes that border on profession, or at least very narrow archetypes). Even the Iconic Four (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief) straddle the line between being archetypal and professional. If you asked them all what they do, the wizard and thief would state their class as a profession, the fighter would give some background (knight, mercenary, soldier) and the cleric might go either way depending on the nature of religion in the setting. For a long time during the "Next" playtest, debate kept raging over whether certain classes "deserved" to remain classes. My observation was that most people who argued FOR reducing the number of classes often wished to remove the Occupational (and narrow archetype) ones, while those who favored a larger number of classes didn't wish to see these classes get rolled into another. (A good example was the Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard:Mage debate). Oddly, I kinda wish the archetypal classes (fighter, rogue, kinda cleric, mage) were all replaced with more "professional" classes (knight, warrior, thief, assassin, priest, crusader, summoner, necromancer, evoker, etc) and D&D officially move to "your class IS your profession" mode, but I don't see that happening. [/QUOTE]

Verification