Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alexemplar" data-source="post: 7725791" data-attributes="member: 6874182">D&amp;D &quot;clerics&quot; aren't mere priests, but undead (but strangely, not demon/devil) turning warrior-prophets largely inspired by Van Helsing.&nbsp; It's &quot;paladins&quot; are only slightly less so. D&amp;D's &quot;druids&quot; are best known as shapeshifters (based on the Gallizenae it seems). D&amp;D's &quot;barbarians&quot; are invariably some flavor of (totally not Northern European) berserker. D&amp;D's &quot;bards&quot; are less lorekeepers/poets as they are wandering rogue/warriors with some true-word style spellcasting. It's &quot;monks&quot; are all some variant of Wuxia warrior. It's &quot;rangers&quot; aren't just wardens/scouts/frontier warriors, but also traffic in magic and nature spirits as inspired by Aragon from LotR. So on and so forth.&nbsp; D&amp;D &quot;sorcerers&quot; aren't just spellcasters, but individuals who are part &gt;insert supernarural creature here&lt; and are apparently different from &quot;wizards&quot; who cast magic- not like they do in 99% of fiction- but by preparing every spell they're going to cast that day ahead of time.&nbsp; Few (if any) of the classes/subclasses in D&amp;D are really what you'd expect them to be based on the historical/casual meanings of their titles.&nbsp; You basically have to unlearn what you knew and come to learn the idiosyncrasies of the D&amp;D version.&nbsp; It helps that so many other fantasy games have been influenced by D&amp;D to the point where we don't bat an eye at things like Paladins calling down rays of holy light, Bards weaving arcane illusions, or druids dressing like Native Americans and turning into bears in order to maul their foes. Not historically accurate at all, but we still roll with it.&nbsp; Not really surprised that the D&amp;D &quot;samurai&quot; deviates from it's historical roots and is instead based on a rather specific depiction/interpretation.&nbsp; I certainly wouldn't expect anything different from D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alexemplar, post: 7725791, member: 6874182"] D&D "clerics" aren't mere priests, but undead (but strangely, not demon/devil) turning warrior-prophets largely inspired by Van Helsing. It's "paladins" are only slightly less so. D&D's "druids" are best known as shapeshifters (based on the Gallizenae it seems). D&D's "barbarians" are invariably some flavor of (totally not Northern European) berserker. D&D's "bards" are less lorekeepers/poets as they are wandering rogue/warriors with some true-word style spellcasting. It's "monks" are all some variant of Wuxia warrior. It's "rangers" aren't just wardens/scouts/frontier warriors, but also traffic in magic and nature spirits as inspired by Aragon from LotR. So on and so forth. D&D "sorcerers" aren't just spellcasters, but individuals who are part >insert supernarural creature here< and are apparently different from "wizards" who cast magic- not like they do in 99% of fiction- but by preparing every spell they're going to cast that day ahead of time. Few (if any) of the classes/subclasses in D&D are really what you'd expect them to be based on the historical/casual meanings of their titles. You basically have to unlearn what you knew and come to learn the idiosyncrasies of the D&D version. It helps that so many other fantasy games have been influenced by D&D to the point where we don't bat an eye at things like Paladins calling down rays of holy light, Bards weaving arcane illusions, or druids dressing like Native Americans and turning into bears in order to maul their foes. Not historically accurate at all, but we still roll with it. Not really surprised that the D&D "samurai" deviates from it's historical roots and is instead based on a rather specific depiction/interpretation. I certainly wouldn't expect anything different from D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification