the prime funciton of each class

[shadzar]

looking towards 5e, and WITHOUT MMO crap like "tank"..what are the prime functions of each D&D class? (not limited to the core classes)

Fighter: Hits things HARD
Rogue: sneaky, sometiems underhanded tactics...but tactician none the less
Wizard: magic-user
Cleric: divine proclaimer, including divine magic, healing, inspires
Ranger: ranged attacker and scout
Paladin: Holy fighter...brings the word of a god, at the tip of his weapon
Druid: tree hugger...nature nut


these are my ideas of their basic functions.. what about yours?

[nockermensch]

This is confusing. You can't have "hit things hard" aside "tree hugger".

[shadzar]

why not?

rather than being a defensive wlal of meat for the fighter.. he is a heavy hitter.

the druid is a tree hugger and nature not, NOT the ranger, anything that has described a ranger as being "disliking cities" is trying to enforce a druidic principle onto another's profession.

ranger is really a profesion that anyone COULD have, but to keep the most favored classes, i went with it as a class and what it does.

that means the druidic class gets to be the one favoring the world itself and nature more than the people inhabiting it.

so the fighter hits things hard, and the druid protects the land from abuse.

present YOUR interpretation of the classes then so that others may see them.

[Hieronymous Rex]

Ranger: A wilderness specialist fighter variant class. No base class should be specifically ranged or melee focused. For druidic abilities, the character should become a paladin of a nature god.

Paladin: A template for martial classes that grants divine powers in return for severe restrictions (esp. code of conduct).

Druid: A cleric of a nature god (e.g. Obad-Hai)

Cleric: Should either stay a class, or become a template for magic-users (the counterpart to Paladin).

[nockermensch]

present YOUR interpretation of the classes then so that others may see them.

Alright. Thinking about D&D fluff (and ignoring what the game rules actually create), here are how I imagine each class schtick:

Barbarian: Brutal fighter that screams and hits things really hard
Fighter: Weapon master with a great defense that knows lots of tricks
Ranger: Agile scout, "nature fighter" (hard to define due to conflicting portraits. D&D Ranger started as Aragorn, then became Drizzt)
Paladin: Holy warrior with a code of conduct (code of conduct aside, it's very hard to conceptualize the paladin as something other than a fighter/cleric)
Monk: Unarmed fighter in the Kung Fu Master tradition.

Bard: Charismatic inspirer and jack of all trades
Rogue: Sneaky and underhanded "probem solver".

Wizard: Nerdy user of uh... "Red, Blue and Black magic", as understood by the MtG color paradigm.
Cleric: Beefy user of White magic
Druid: Beefy user of Green magic. Also, a shapeshifter
Sorcerer: Bizarro world Wizards, really. They added the whole bloodlines thing later to try to put some flavor on Sorcerers other than "here's a wizard for those who dislike Vancian casting".

[Ancient History]

Let's start simple. You've got your four basic classes:

Fighter - Combat specialist
Mage - Arcane Magic specialist
Thief - Sneaky/steal shit specialist
Cleric - Divine Magic specialist

You could argue about this - there's a lot of overlap in divine and arcane magic - but let's keep those for now. Then you have the super specialist classes:

Fighter/Barbarian - Focus on melee
Fighter/Monk - Focus on unarmed combat
Mage/Sorcerer, Warlock, or Specialist Wizard - Arcane Magic specialist in some area
Thief/Ninja or Assassin - Focus on sneakiness and stabiness
Cleric/Druid - Focus on nature magic

The main thing with the super specialist classes is that you give up some versatility in exchange for enhanced focus on some area. The thing is, by themselves some of these combinations don't quite cut the mustard - a 2nd level Ninja is not likely to be considerably sneakier or stabbier than a 3rd level Thief, but they either lack several of the basic skills of the Thief, or they don't and then there's no reason not to be a Ninja instead of a Thief. In later editions, these classes tend to get KewlPowerz or some mechanical difference that sets them apart, like the Barbarian's ability to rage (and different prestige classes that feed off of/expand on that ability) or the Monk's chi attacks. Which brings us to combo classes.

Fighter+Mage = Spellsword or Duskblade
Fighter+Cleric = Paladin
Mage+Thief = Bard or Spellthief
Druid+Fighter+Thief = Ranger
KitchenSink = Factotum or Jester
Fighter + Mage + Thief = Elf
Etc.

The "Masters of None" - by trading off some abilities (or in the original case, by slow advancement) you're able to do more stuff, but less effectively than specialists can do it at their own level. A Bard can cast arcane spells, but is only about as effective as a regular mage at about a third or fourth of their level, and gets their ass handed to them by a super specialist wizard of the same level. Again, the most mature of these - like the Ranger - evolve special mechanics or roles that compensate somewhat for their lack in other areas.

Unsurprisingly, combo-classes and super-specialists make up the bulk of prestige classes, and that's to be expected - the prestige classes generally build on a character's existing abilities, or give them complementary abilities. Then you have the New Mechanics Classes:

Artificer
Binder
Divine Mind
Dragon Shaman/Marshal
Incarnate
Psion
Soulknife
Warblade

We won't get into the details or all the variations, because most of these guys are some variant of "use new magic X" and the exact nature of the new mechanic means that the slot they fill in the team varies, particularly when we get into their inevitable combo-classes and super-specialists. If the mechanics are bad, like the Tome of Battle classes, then the class is essentially a suckier or broken version of an established character class. Psions, Binders, and Artificers are basically "new" flavors of casters, their only real utility is some slight mechanical advantage or access to certain abilities that are more difficult for other caster-types to access. The Soulknife and various incarnum-using classes are essentially specialists in using a specific class of user-specific item, which is novel but not entirely different from a pimped-out Fighter that specializes in his Hackmaster+12. The aura/mantle classes are weird and sorta take their roles from Bards in that their main schtick is being a "support class" to boost the other players, which works much better in video games or a minis game than in an RPG.

[Hieronymous Rex]

Rogue: Depends on stealth and surprise for combat rather than direct confrontation. Has a variety of methods of thievery, deception, etc..

Bard: ...I'm not entirely sure what to do with this class. Perhaps a Factotum/wildcard/Charlatan class that has limited access to other classes abilities?

Magic-User/Wizard: A Vancian spell caster. Specialist templates available for each school.

Cleric: If a template for magic-users, should trade spell slots for domains and a code of conduct (perhaps not as severe as those of paladin's). The chapter on gods should include rules for animism, worship of pantheons, and causes (i.e. your spells are granted by any god that happens to agree with your agenda).

Psion/Sorceror: Whatever its name, a latent magic user. Trades the magic-user/wizard's expanded spell list for semi-vancian flexibility.

Monk: A martial class with supporting "psionic" abilities. Supports both unarmed and armed combat.

[rasmuswagner]

why not?

so the fighter hits things hard, and the druid protects the land from abuse.

One of these is a How and/or What, the other is a Why, which should never be a class issue in the first place. How can you not understand that, you drooling retard?

[souran]

Hmm;

I think that every class must be a "specilist" in some area of every minigame.

So having the rogue be a stealth specilist at the cost of combat is a terribad idea.

Instead you would have for combat:

Fighter: Good damage absorbtion/mitigation, damage output: consistant & average
Rogue: Low damage absorbtion/mitigation, damage output: consistant average with ability to spike high conditionally.
Wizard: low damage absorbtion, damage output: inconsistant but very high aginst single targets, consistant but average against large numbers of targets
Cleric: average damage absorbtion but can spike to excellent with spells. damage output: consisantly low but can spike to high high with spells.


So really the fighter is the most consistant class, the rogue trades a small amount of defense for offense in combat. The wizard trades defense for a consisantly effective aoe powers but his single target powers really on the rng to carry the day.

The cleric has average defense and low offense. Using magic they cna put themselves in the "good" category of either offense or defense. This is a lot of flexibility but on a turn by turn basis they can't spike all catagories.

Then you can add other classes:

Barbarian: combat effectivness with slightly higher ceiling than rogue but with a much wider range of results. Similar defensive capabilities.
Ranger: Slightly lower ceiling than rogue but more consistantly gets near their damage limit.
Druid: Cleric analogue with less ability to modify defense but with a wizards cieling of single target damage (and a wizards level of RNG reliance). Little aoe ability
Paladin: similar consistant defense to fighter but with power base damage and the clerics ability to boost offensive effectivness.
Bard: Rogue defensive platform with wizard aoe platform with range-like single target ceiling.

Basically the more consisant a D&D character is the lower their ceiling needs to be. Also the more offense you take the less defense you get.

[John Magnum]

You do have to be careful when making tradeoffs between consistent damage and high-ceiling damage, because D&D at least has traditionally come with a million ways to fall off the RNG. In a hypothetical new system of course you can do a lot to prevent that, starting by just flat-out not including options like Maximize Spell, but still. If you give players generic tools to increase their reliability, that obviously skews things in the swingier classes' favor. That could end up being a "Less power now for more power later" progression track, which isn't great for several reasons.

[shadzar]

why not?

so the fighter hits things hard, and the druid protects the land from abuse.

One of these is a How and/or What, the other is a Why, which should never be a class issue in the first place. How can you not understand that, you drooling retard?

they are ALL why.

why does this class exist?

Fighter.. to hit things hard
Wizard, to cast spells
Druid to protect nature

that is what a function is.. WHY it exists..

the function of a screwdriver is why you choose it over a hammer when using screws.

it just so happens the fighters WHY is also his HOW it is used/designed.

the druids WHY is also its HOW it is used/designed.

that is EXACTLY what defines the reason for a class to exist is the WHY [does it exist?].

the HOW it takes on that function doesnt have to be the reason it HAS that function.

again the screwdriver... electric or manual.. are HOW, but WHY is still because you are using screws.

[Ravengm]

why does this class exist?

Fighter.. to hit things hard
Wizard, to cast spells
Druid to protect nature

Your problem is that you're describing the Fighter and Wizard with mechanics, and the Druid with fluff. If you had said "summons creatures of natural origins to fight" or "turns into a furry", then you'd be on the same page. "Protect nature" is a character concept that can be applied to literally anybody. The thief can be a member of Greenpeace or whatever, but he can't Wild Shape.

[shadzar]

why does this class exist?

Fighter.. to hit things hard
Wizard, to cast spells
Druid to protect nature

Your problem is that you're describing the Fighter and Wizard with mechanics, and the Druid with fluff. If you had said "summons creatures of natural origins to fight" or "turns into a furry", then you'd be on the same page. "Protect nature" is a character concept that can be applied to literally anybody. The thief can be a member of Greenpeace or whatever, but he can't Wild Shape.

to hit things hard can be applied to anyone also...but its the fighters thing to do.

likewise an often used reason for a thief... to steal things.

it doesnt mean that those are not functions. i dont prefer it as the thief's prime function. but the reason i see druids exist is to protect nature.

i will start another thread somewhere to see if people REALLY are silly enough to think that a design concept comes from a set of mechanics that hasn't been used yet.

the wizard was created to cast spells. "magic-user"

the problem with your example of a druid and description of its function.. it doesnt eliminate wizards of clerics as they can turn into critters or summon them.

The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

hey look mechanics described in the fluff.

The druid is a priest of nature and guardian of the wilderness, be it forest, plains, or jungle.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

look no mechanics mentioned

[nockermensch]

why not?

so the fighter hits things hard, and the druid protects the land from abuse.

One of these is a How and/or What, the other is a Why, which should never be a class issue in the first place. How can you not understand that, you drooling retard?

they are ALL why.

why does this class exist?

Fighter.. to hit things hard
Wizard, to cast spells
Druid to protect nature

that is what a function is.. WHY it exists..

*head explodes*

Well, alright. I can see from where you're coming from. Just a look into how the spell schools are divided shows this kind of categorization is accepted in D&D.

Then again, can you see why describing the classes' "prime functions" like you did causes problems?

If you can, why would you state a problematic categorization like this? If you can't, then what happens with the druid when I roll a Fighter raised in a forest by the faeries, who's dedicated to "protect nature"? And what happens with the fighter when the druid wildshapes into a dire tiger and hits things really hard?

[Ravengm]

to hit things hard can be applied to anyone also...but its the fighters thing to do.

Except the fighter specifically has class features devoted to making him hit things harder. The Druid does not have a class feature saying "You must prevent people from cutting down trees."

The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

hey look mechanics described in the fluff.

The druid is a priest of nature and guardian of the wilderness, be it forest, plains, or jungle.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

look no mechanics mentioned

...especially considering they're fluff. Quoting the description of an archetypical Fighter doesn't give you mechanics, it gives you the author's idea of whatever person he was thinking about at the time. A mechanic is an actual class ability provided to a class, not the flavor text for it.

[erik]

I like the notion of taking a basic class (combat/party role) and throwing a skin (power source) on it to paint it with a bit more flavor.

• Warrior: Martial specialist with strength and skills able to compete in a magical world (forges magic equipment, uses special tricks/foils).
Primary: Damage.
• Arcanist: Cast spells to control environment via elementals, transmutation and enchantment.
Primary: Damage.
• Conjurer: Cast spells to conjure illusions, objects or creatures.
Primary: Battlefield Control.
• Shaman: Cast spells to provide healing, buffs or debuffs.
Primary: Buff/Debuff.

I care less about Divine/Arcane in the class section since that is their power source not what they actually are doing. Arcanist was used as a general label even though clerics can do a lot of those things too.

And throw on various skins:
• Brute (emphasis on melee knacks)
• Guile (emphasis on social knacks)
• Nature (emphasis on wilderness knacks)
• Profane (emphasis on evil knacks)
• Sacred (emphasis on holy knacks)
• Studied (emphasis on knowledge knacks)
• Trickster (emphasis on trickery knacks)

Warrior Brute= Armsman
Warrior Guile= Swashbuckler
Warrior Nature= Warden
Warrior Profane= Scion
Warrior Sacred= Paladin
Warrior Studied= Tactician
Warrior Trickster= Assassin

Arcanist Brute= Spellsword
Arcanist Guile= Enchanter/The Shadow
Arcanist Nature= Storm Lord
Arcanist Profane= Warlock
Arcanist Sacred= Favored Soul
Arcanist Studied= Lore Master
Arcanist Trickster= Shapechanger

Conjurer Brute= (Full Metal) Alchemist
Conjurer Guile= Illusionist
Conjurer Nature= Animal Lord
Conjurer Profane= Demon Binder/Skeleton Lord
Conjurer Sacred= Spirit Summoner
Conjurer Studied= Gadgeteer
Conjurer Trickster= Jester

Shaman Brute= Warpriest
Shaman Guile= Bard
Shaman Nature= Medicine Man
Shaman Profane= Witch/Necromancer
Shaman Sacred= Healer
Shaman Studied= Diviner
Shaman Trickster= Spellthief

Martial Artist/Monk isn't represented but there's no reason why many of these could not be an unarmored hand-to-hand capable character. I'm not really married to any of this, just thought it was a decent way to make classes, and wanted to salvage what had potential to be an interesting thread.

[edit: threw in Sneak, and messed a bit with some Guile flavors and tweaking of casting groupings, changed Summoner name to Conjurer]
[moar edit: got rid of Sneak class, replaced with Trickster skin instead.]

[rasmuswagner]

Ow, my brain is full of fuck. Why oh why did I read and answer a post by that crazy Grogtard?

[JonSetanta]

• Guile

Martial Artist/Monk is Fighter/Monk. It should always be a variant of Fighter.

Although if you want to risk your fragile caster going frontline, I suppose Wizard/Monk such as various anime protagonists and the Wu Jen might work, albeit martial arts would be an addendum to spellcasting.

[nockermensch]

The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

hey look mechanics described in the fluff.

The druid is a priest of nature and guardian of the wilderness, be it forest, plains, or jungle.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

look no mechanics mentioned

(bolded mine)
Man, wat? There's a fucking huge mechanic mentioned right there in your quote. Are you just trolling?

[Foxwarrior]

Ow, my brain is full of fuck. Why oh why did I read and answer a post by that crazy Grogtard?

Probably because the Gaming Den is a place where people angrily disagree with each other in the hopes of making theirselves and each other less ignorant. It's hard to curb that reflex for specific lost causes.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Everyone should have given up when shad defined the wizard's role as 'magic-user.' Not only is that a feedback loop of self-reference, but this is a fantasy setting and every class uses magic. Even if it's just wielding a magic weapon or drinking potions.

[shadzar]

what happens with the druid when I roll a Fighter raised in a forest by the faeries, who's dedicated to "protect nature"?

roll that fighter for 5e and tell me what he has.

oh.. since we are "looking towards 5e" as the first post says.. that means you cannot yet roll that fighter.

as you see others have done, they have listed a class, and what function that class serves as they see it.

THAT is the purpose of this thread.

see IF a consensus emerges somewhere and just to generally see what people think of when they think class, like the other thread is asking another question about classes.

you wouldnt roll a fighter on just bullet points about the class.. you could only do that, and this goes for any class, AFTER you have the full class developed.

so would you list fighter as "dedicated to 'protect nature'" for the prime function?

[shadzar]

Quoting the description of an archetypical Fighter doesn't give you mechanics, it gives you the author's idea of whatever person he was thinking about at the time.

you can NOT design mechanics for something you dont yet know its purpose.

the entire point is to find out its function, and ONLY then, can you create mechanics to support that function.

rather than worry about my list...why dont you bother posting yours for others to see?

until that time, i will not entertain a response to any more of your posts here as there are MANY others posts with interesting incites and information presented that DO provide an answer to the actual question what THEY see the function of the classes as.

and they dont have a list of mechanics for them

[Ravengm]

so would you list fighter as "dedicated to 'protect nature'" for the prime function?

You still haven't shown anything outside of flavor text that shows a Druid is "dedicated to protecting nature" either, so it's really a moot point.

[Kaelik]

I think, if you really wanted to talk about the purposes of the classes, instead of stupid words like tree hugger and magic user, would be to spell it out into answers to specific question:

1) How do they win fights?
2) Where does there power come from?
3) How do they deal with non combat challenges. (Depending on the challenge, some people should be allowed to say, "let other people take care of it." But you damn well can't say that for everything.)
4) What sort of motivations do they normally have? (Though obviously players should be free to toss out aspects of this whenever they want, IE, not all druids give a shit about murdering trees.)