Stormtalon said:
You should probably add Bard the Bowman, from The Hobbit -- he may be an even more archetypal ranger than Aragorn. After all, he slew the dragon Smaug with a well-placed bowshot and the legendary Black Arrow.
Bard was a guardsman in a town ... I would think he was a fighter. A ranger travels the wilderness (hence the name, from "one who ranges"), and in that respect Aragorn definitely had it over Bard.
The traditional "divine spells for rangers" thing also comes from Aragorn, but that's a bit of a fallacy -- his healing and other abilities were
unique to Aragorn because he was the king, not because he was a ranger. Faramir and his men, while functionally also rangers, certainly couldn't have done that.
Anyway, to give a rundown of the classic, er, classes, and what makes them, er, themselves, I have this:
FIGHTER: Fighters are the consummate warrior, able to pick up just about any weapon or wear any armor, and kick butt with it. While they may have a specialty, in the form of a favored weapon or a signature move, their primary thing is their adaptability. Give them anything to fight with, even their bare hands, and they'll clean their foes' clocks.
RANGER: Rangers are wilderness scouts, survivalists, and patrollers. They are hardened by the elements and able to perform well in battle, but are primarily loners and therefore favor small-unit, hit-and-run style tactics. They are also well-versed in the lore of nature and the wild.
BARBARIAN: This class was originally created to make it possible to simulate the comics version of Conan, i.e., a Fighter who could survive wearing only a fur diaper instead of plate. As such, I would prefer to see some kind of ability for the Fighter to eschew armor than for there to be a separate class. In my mental world, Conan is a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue.
PALADIN: Paladins are holy warriors (typically knights in shining armor), but other than a vague "I know one when I see one" idea, I don't have a lot of sharply-defined ideas about them. I can certainly see Jedi Knights as Paladins, for instance.
CAVALIER: Cavaliers aren't really classic, I just put this here to amuse myself.
WIZARD: Wizards command magic spells, obviously, and are loremasters. Typically, I think of wizards as being more studious and learned, and usually more benign or at least less sinister than sorcerers. Wizards have learned magic from tomes, scrolls, and study, and use alchemy, formulae, and foci (such as staffs or wands) to aid their spellcasting. They are generally not much in the physical ability department (as they tend to be wizened old geezers or nerdy bookish types), but have lots of knowledge and wisdom packed into their brains.
SORCERER: In some ways, a sorcerer is just "an evil wizard" -- although to some extent I think of sorcerers as gaining their magic from external sources (e.g., granted by demons, empowered by a genie, or channeled through the Heart of Ahriman, that kind of thing). As such, sorcerers tend to be more rooted in passion and raw ambition rather than careful study.
CLERIC: I've always thought the cleric was a strange class invented more to fill a needed spot in the group (i.e., the walking hitpoint battery) than any real story or setting role. They're kinda-sorta paladiney and kinda-sorta wizardey, but not really either one. I mean, Van Helsing could turn undead, does that make him a cleric? He certainly wasn't an ordained priest. Personally, I would ditch this class and give the healing abilities to wizards.
DRUID: To me, a "druid" should more or less be a slightly-more-woodsy version of the Wizard, possibly sort of a ranger/wizard. There's no real reason for them to be a separate class in my mind. "Druid" is a title.
ROGUE: The rogue is a sneak, a scout, and a perennial troublemaker. Although not restricted to urban environments, this is where they thrive, usually by less-than-legal means. They are experts at infiltration, deception, and the unexpected knife suddenly in your kidney. In a straight-up fight, a fighter of equal level would wipe the floor with a rogue -- which is why rogues never get into straight-up fights.
BARD: The bard as generally portrayed in
D&D is something of a rogue/wizard, with a musical focus to their magic rather than a tome-and-staff focus. Assuming wizards have the "loremaster" style abilities mentioned above, Bard could easily be a prestige class, or like "Druid," just a title. In some ways, bards feel like they should be fine swordsmen as well -- not able to stand up to the dwarven berserker with a broadaxe perhaps, but able to take on the Duke's sneering son in a duel and live to tell the tale at least.
ASSASSIN: A rogue who is paid to kill specific targets. No reason to be another class.
THIEF-ACROBAT: See Cavalier.
MONK: This has always been something of an oddball class. Yes, playing a wuxia-style martial artist is cool ... but what the heck is it doing being shoehorned into the quasi-medieval settings of
D&D? So while I like them, I can easily see them going into supplements rather than as a core class. But as to what makes the monk a monk, that answer is 100% Kung Fu!
-The Gneech
