Class labels as a mechanical straightjacket in D&D.

[icyshadowlord]

I don't know why people still talk to the trolls.

I'm wondering the same thing right now. Maybe I should stop and help in putting this thread back on-topic.

[Gods_Trick]

I don't know why people still talk to the trolls.

My guess is beta male behaviour (applies to both genders though, 'male' is for familiarity with the theory). You establish dominance by either being so good as something you don't need to work at it, or by putting someone down. This escalates on the Internet because beta hominids often lack strong social skills, which include conflict resolution.

Or they could be lonely I guess *shrugs*.

[Username17]

I think it's more like this:


People who didn't have the sense to put Plebian on ignore the first time he repeated allegations of his that had already been refuted with page citations keep reading his posts. And then they keep seeing him being wrong. And then they can't go to bed until they've corrected him.

Honestly, I suspect a number of people lack the pattern recognition to realize that Plebian isn't ever going to stop saying things that are wrong no matter how many times you correct him. I suspect he hasn't even played 3e, and just repeats CoDzilla rants based on poorly understood second- or third-hand reports. He knows that wizards are overpowered in 3e and he knows that fighters are underpowered in 3e, but he knows that because we say it, not because he has any actual knowledge about the subject. If he had any first hand experience, his "examples" wouldn't be weird flailings using illegal time stop combos and would instead be based on things that actually work like wall of force + cloud kill.

I have no idea why he constantly shifts everything to a 4e vs. a game he doesn't know or understand arguments. But you're not actually helping him understand anything by arguing with him because his conclusion (that 4e is better than the 3e he imagines existed) is already determined without reference to any evidence or experience at all.

---

Anyway, back on topic.

The class names and descriptions are weird. On the one hand, they don't actually matter. You don't play "Bob the Fighter", you play "Pepsi Phillips the reformed bandit" or whatever. Except of course, that the "Fighter" designation does matter, because people think it does. That description has no game effect, but it informs people's choices and perceptions of what choices are possible or what should happen when those choices are made.

That being said, classes that imply a methodology of doing things both in and out of combat are generally positive. Ranger, Rogue, and Sorcerer are all good class names, because they encourage players to select them and do stuff. Class names that imply only a single activity are bad. Fighter and Thief are bad class names, because they encourage one-dimensional thinking. Class names that apply to whole groups of people who do lots of different stuff are also bad. Barbarian and Gypsy are bad class names because they are incoherent.

-Username17

[talozin]

The class names and descriptions are weird. On the one hand, they don't actually matter. You don't play "Bob the Fighter", you play "Pepsi Phillips the reformed bandit" or whatever. Except of course, that the "Fighter" designation does matter, because people think it does. That description has no game effect, but it informs people's choices and perceptions of what choices are possible or what should happen when those choices are made.

When I first started playing Champions it was something of a mental adjustment from the game systems I'd been playing up until then. "Energy Blast" in Champions isn't actually an energy blast, it's "Ranged Damage, Medium Lethality, Fluff TBD". Once one reaches enlightenment, it's clear. Until then, one bangs one's head against the game system a lot. It's not helpful that the distinction between special effects and mechanics is easily elided in many cases, even by the game itself - the special effect for Telekinesis could be something bizarre like having an army of little men move thngs around on your command. But it could also just be "I'm a telekinetic, wtf else do you need?"

[Gods_Trick]

I'm not sure I follow. I get that Ranger = Fighter + woodsy element (bows, animal companion, nature magic). Thats because theres a plethora of Ranger characters that tells us a Ranger is a woodsy Fighter.

The Rogue suggest a sneaky, loner. Thats implicit in the eponym. And again the books and movie that says Rogue = sneaky, skilled, loner.

I'm not sure how Thief differs. Its a sneaky, skilled pickpocket. Lots of books and fantasies has the pickpocket that tries to burgle the hero and gets dragged along. Why is it an inferior title for the class?

[Username17]

I'm not sure I follow. I get that Ranger = Fighter + woodsy element (bows, animal companion, nature magic). Thats because theres a plethora of Ranger characters that tells us a Ranger is a woodsy Fighter.

The Rogue suggest a sneaky, loner. Thats implicit in the eponym. And again the books and movie that says Rogue = sneaky, skilled, loner.

I'm not sure how Thief differs. Its a sneaky, skilled pickpocket. Lots of books and fantasies has the pickpocket that tries to burgle the hero and gets dragged along. Why is it an inferior title for the class?

When people think "ranger" they might think of forest rangers, or they might think of army rangers, or Texas rangers, or Pakistan rangers. The word refers to a number of occupations that range from skirmisher to scout to warden. It means someone who "ranges over" terrain. But even if you gravitate specifically to one of the paths of Rangerness, the Warden, you still cover a wide variety of stuff. You presumably track and scout and know the woods and shoot things with a bow and shit. That's a skill set that you could actually have.

Fighter is much worse because all it says is that you participate in combat. What do you do when you aren't fighting? Hell, what do you do when you are fighting? In combat, it's too vague because it doesn't define your character's skill set at all. Out of combat it's too proscriptive, because it doesn't suggest that your character can do anything.

Rogue is another great class name. The word means someone who is dishonest, knavish, or mischievous. The actual dictionary definition includes the word "scoundrel". That's awesome, because it brings to mind characters like Han Solo, and he is awesome. It implies that you fight dirty but that you can also be sneaky and convincing and have unsavory contacts. Again, this suggests a complete skill set.

Thief is much worse because all it says is that you steal shit. That's not a complete skill set, that's just an action. The act of taking something that doesn't belong to you. That doesn't suggest a combat shtick, and even out of combat it's really narrow and potentially disruptive to party dynamics.

-Username17

[sabs]

Thief is bad, Rogue is good, but Thief Acrobat is better.
Fighter is terrible as a class.
Barbarian
Ranger
Scout
Knight
Man at Arms
Skirmisher
Soldier
Warrior
Guard

All are much better. They give you a good idea what you do, what your skill sets are. It also gives you an idea on what skill sets you might have outside of combat.

[tzor]

I'm not sure I follow. I get that Ranger = Fighter + woodsy element (bows, animal companion, nature magic). Thats because theres a plethora of Ranger characters that tells us a Ranger is a woodsy Fighter.

The Rogue suggest a sneaky, loner. Thats implicit in the eponym. And again the books and movie that says Rogue = sneaky, skilled, loner.

I'm not sure how Thief differs. Its a sneaky, skilled pickpocket. Lots of books and fantasies has the pickpocket that tries to burgle the hero and gets dragged along. Why is it an inferior title for the class?

I'll answer the later question first; all things hopefully should fall into place.

It all starts with 2E ... "Thief" is Gygaxian ... "Rogue" might also get under the radar of the current anti-D&D element; evangelical Christians on a mission.

The original 1E AD&D classes were interesting. You had your base classes and then your variants (and one really WTF class, but that's the original Bard and really WTF were they thinking). Two of these classes were actually hybrid classes, allowing a fighter to dabble in magic at higher levels. They were

• Paladin - Access to Cleric Spells
• Ranger - Access to Magic User and Druid Spells

For the original base classes, only fighter was kept from 1 to 2. Cleric became Priest, Thief became Rogue, Magic User became Wizard. Back in 1E, those names were used as a part of individual level names (Saying you are a 1st level something is in game stupid; saying that you are an Accolyte, for example, sounds so in character reasonable).

This change in 2E was repeated in every edition since then, because the reason for this change (mostly anti Gygax sentiment) was lost to future developers.

[Username17]

For the original base classes, only fighter was kept from 1 to 2. Cleric became Priest, Thief became Rogue, Magic User became Wizard. Back in 1E, those names were used as a part of individual level names (Saying you are a 1st level something is in game stupid; saying that you are an Accolyte, for example, sounds so in character reasonable).

This is inaccurate. The Thief vanished from 2nd to 3rd. In 2nd edition, it was still a Thief:



-Username17

[Orion]

You also have the option to use class names that don't mean anything. One of the aspects of Exalted that I actually like is the class names. Dawns get 100% weapon combat abilities, with a splash of mass combat, so they're basically D&D Fighters. But rolling up a "Dawn" doesn't restrict the imagination the way rolling a "Fighter" would.

[talozin]

For the original base classes, only fighter was kept from 1 to 2. Cleric became Priest, Thief became Rogue, Magic User became Wizard. Back in 1E, those names were used as a part of individual level names (Saying you are a 1st level something is in game stupid; saying that you are an Accolyte, for example, sounds so in character reasonable).

ISTR there was a "grouping" of classes together as well as some namechanges. Like, the Bard and the Thief were the "Rogue" classes, the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger were the "Warrior" classes, and so on. This was different from 1st Edition, where Paladin and Ranger were "sub-classes" of Fighter, rather than distinct classes. Ironically, the 1st Edition "sub-classes" probably differed more from their parent class than the 2E versions did.

[RobbyPants]

It all starts with 2E ... "Thief" is Gygaxian ... "Rogue" might also get under the radar of the current anti-D&D element; evangelical Christians on a mission.

Are you saying this happened before or after 2E? I met some brief religious opposition to D&D when I started playing 2E, but I don't think I've heard a peep about it since I've been playing 3E. This could, of course, be entirely anecdotal.

ISTR there was a "grouping" of classes together as well as some namechanges. Like, the Bard and the Thief were the "Rogue" classes, the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger were the "Warrior" classes, and so on.

Yeah, I think the other two groupings were Priest and Wizard. I was always irked that Mages weren't called Wizards, so I was happy with the change in 3E. I did have a hard time at first saying Rogue instead of Thief, though.

[Swordslinger]

Class names are generally supposed to guide you down what the class is going to be used for. One of my biggest problems with 3E was that everything wasn't straightforward. The best warriors were actually spell casters.

4E may have its problems but you won't find that some cleric is a better archer than your bow ranger.

That's a definite plus. If you take a class based called fighter, you better damn well be able to fight well.

[mean_liar]

This is inaccurate. The Thief vanished from 2nd to 3rd. In 2nd edition, it was still a Thief:

Yes and no, but mostly yes.

Thief in 2nd edition was a subclass of the Rogue heading. Rogues included Bards as well.

Warriors: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin
Wizards: Mage, Illusionist, (other specialists)
Priests: Cleric, Druid
Rogues: Thief, Bard

[Plebian]

class names should really only be restrictions if you let them be; if I want to play a dual weapon Ranger who's a retired soldier, then he's by god not a Ranger in-game. if I want to play a Wizard who's a snake oil salesman and charlatan who just happens to find rooking people easier than practicing magic, he's sure as hell not called a Wizard. and there's nothing stopping me from having a Sorcerer and calling him Grand Magus Supreme of Pilanthia.

so basically class names are worthless except as out-of-game terms to distinguish them from one another.

[shadzar]

For the original base classes, only fighter was kept from 1 to 2. Cleric became Priest, Thief became Rogue, Magic User became Wizard. Back in 1E, those names were used as a part of individual level names (Saying you are a 1st level something is in game stupid; saying that you are an Accolyte, for example, sounds so in character reasonable).

This is inaccurate. The Thief vanished from 2nd to 3rd. In 2nd edition, it was still a Thief:



-Username17

1st edition:
fighter
cleric
magic-user
thief
paladin
druid
ranger
illusionist
assassin
monk

2nd edition:
fighter
cleric
mage
thief
paladin
druid
ranger
illusionist
bard

2nd edition class groups:
warrior: fighter, ranger, paladin
priest: cleric, druid
wizard: mage, illusionist
rogue: thief, bard

1st -> 2nd:
magic-user became mage
assassin and monk were replaced with bard

Tzor's knowledge/memory of AD&D is very lacking.

[tzor]

Tzor's knowledge/memory of AD&D is very lacking.

Being at work does make my memory distracted. I forgot that "priest" was the superset name of the class group in 2E. The same is truw for "wizard." The same was true for "rogue." So to some extent, I was right, those terms were used in 2E.

By the way "Bard" was in 1E, at the back of the book as an optional class. (I have to get back home to verify, it might have been the back of the DMG.) It was a otherwise illegal class, I'm not even sure the first dual class is "by the book" but then a third class is taken and finally the character enters "bardic colleges."

The 2E bard had nothing to do with the 1E bard.

Assassins were removed for the same reason half orcs were removed.

[Winnah]

Bard was in the PHB. Fighter/Thief/Druid Dual Class then Bard. Druidic oaths regarding metal equipment were relaxed slightly, so the bard could wear chainmail. Not sure if they had to take it off before casting spells.

I like the concept. But jumping through so many hoops means it was an unrealistic option for play. 15 strength, 17s in Dex, Wisdom and Charisma was just the start of your problems.

[shadzar]

Tzor's knowledge/memory of AD&D is very lacking.

Being at work does make my memory distracted. I forgot that "priest" was the superset name of the class group in 2E. The same is truw for "wizard." The same was true for "rogue." So to some extent, I was right, those terms were used in 2E.

By the way "Bard" was in 1E, at the back of the book as an optional class. (I have to get back home to verify, it might have been the back of the DMG.) It was a otherwise illegal class, I'm not even sure the first dual class is "by the book" but then a third class is taken and finally the character enters "bardic colleges."

The 2E bard had nothing to do with the 1E bard.

Assassins were removed for the same reason half orcs were removed.

Appendix 1 is the Psionics, and Appendix 2 is the bard, no need to check...because as you said...

APPENDIX II: BARDS
As this character class subsumes the functions of two other classes, fighters and thieves, and tops them off with magical abilities, it is often not allowed by Dungeon Masters.

They just pull it into 2nd to make it formal guessing it will work that way...but bard and psion both should have been left out. They (Gary) say off the bat that they aren't made for the game, but outside of the games rules.

[CCarter]

By the way "Bard" was in 1E, at the back of the book as an optional class. (I have to get back home to verify, it might have been the back of the DMG.) It was a otherwise illegal class, I'm not even sure the first dual class is "by the book" but then a third class is taken and finally the character enters "bardic colleges."

We're being sucked into a hole in the rules Captain! Watch out.

I think its implied that it works much like dual classing, but not exactly - the prerequisites to become a Fighter/Thief would be Str 15/Dex 17 rather than whatever the bard prerequisites are. Also half-elves could be bards in 1E, and couldn't switch classes (dual class) - its anyone's guess as to whether half-elf bards were just meant to start out as multiclassed fighter/thieves instead, or are an exception.
The second class change isn't quite like real dual classing either: for one thing, you get crazy-good HP just because the extra bard levels gave extra Hit Dice/Hit Points, unlike other dual classing. (a friend of mine played one of these in a 2E game, with GM permission).

[hogarth]

Except no. Because he boasts how his magical mojo is bigger than that of the balrog's there and shatters solid stone by tapping it with a staff.

The specifics of his boasting and the weapon he smashes on the bridge can be trivially rewritten without changing the plot.

Now, on the other hand, "being a bad-ass swordsman" as the source of your competency by definition prevents you from working miracles.

Gandalf doesn't perform any noteworthy miracles when anyone's watching.

I think we just have a different definition of what a "real" wizard is (for purposes of this discussion). In my opinion, if it's a trivial exercise to remove any mention of Gandalf spellcasting without changing the plot of the book whatsoever, he's not a "real" wizard. Repeating every few chapters "Don't forget -- this guy's totally a bad-ass wizard!!" isn't good enough. Now the Harry Potter books -- those are "real" wizards, since it's impossible to tell those stories without spellcasting. But that's sorcery-and-sorcery, not swords-and-sorcery.

[violence in the media]

If Gandalf isn't a "wizard," what method of observable distinction are we using to exclude Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, and Aragorn from the sphere of "capable adversaries of the Balrog"?

I don't think you can credibly point to Gandalf being a better swordsman, archer, or general melee combantant than any of those four, especially if you apply your metric for determining his wizard status.

edit: I'm not concerned about whether or not it affects the overall story, I'm curious about his assertion that the Balrog is beyond any of them, as opposed to being beyond any of us.

[Gods_Trick]

Wizard =/= spellcasting in LotR. Wizards can cast 'spells', but it a fraction of their abilities. Apparentlywillpower staredowns and spiritual wrassling is part of the mojo. As is talking to animals, making friends elves and studying Hobbitology.

JRR was a silly prat wasn't he? Thinking wizards should do more than just cast spells.

[hogarth]

If Gandalf isn't a "wizard," what method of observable distinction are we using to exclude Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, and Aragorn from the sphere of "capable adversaries of the Balrog"?

There really isn't much distinction, as far as I know. The only difference is that Gandalf had the "I can come back from the dead" plot coupon, which isn't particularly tied to being a wizard.

Wizard =/= spellcasting in LotR.

Well, I told you what my definition of a "real wizard" is, so obviously that's what I'm talking about. JRRT could define a wizard as "a small humanoid with hairy feet", for all I care.

[sabs]

Boromir's special power seems to be "I die so others may live"
Aragorn has a magical sword, maybe, and that's it. Its not clear he can stand up to a Balrog. Gimli and Legolas are Dwarf/Elf and neither of them shows signs of Magic. They have super-enhanced abilities, but no actual I can use magic to do crap.

Gandalf seems to think he can last at least a couple of rounds against the Balrog. Noone else even pretends to think they can do that.