PDA

View Full Version : Odd Observation of Classic Classes



Frenth Alunril
2012-06-15, 08:31 PM
I don't know if we can make a list of these, but I would like to start with the most peculiar thing about fantasy RPG's that I have come across.

The Ranger

So, Let me get this right. As he gets more experience in the world he starts to choose favored enemies. This increases as he goes up in levels. He uses his knowledge of the stereotypical behavior of different creatures as an advantage in all things, tracking, combat, damage, etc...

I know that doesn't seem funny.

But how is it any different than a racist old man?

I can see it now, "What are you going to play, Bobby? I was thinking of being a Paladin, because they are cool, but what about you?"

"Well, I really like this Racist guy. The older he gets, the more accurate he is in attacking people he hates, whats he called again? Oh, yeah, a "Ranger.""

I don't know, mostly this is just an observation. Has anyone else found anything absolutely absurd about the fantasy we project ourselves into?

Arbane
2012-06-15, 08:35 PM
I don't know, mostly this is just an observation. Has anyone else found anything absolutely absurd about the fantasy we project ourselves into?

And so, the floodgates open.... :smallamused:

Rallicus
2012-06-15, 08:53 PM
I always sort of thought of barbarians having retard strength.

My friend's brother was really big when we were kids and I remember him throwing our smallest friend across the room when he tried to mess with him. My friend literally flew a good twenty feet before hitting a wall. I always imagine him when I think of barbarians raging.

Please note: I do not mean to offend anyone with mental disabilities or anyone who knows someone with mental disabilities. I just don't know the actual term for "retard strength."

Frenth Alunril
2012-06-15, 09:25 PM
Please note: I do not mean to offend anyone with mental disabilities or anyone who knows someone with mental disabilities. I just don't know the actual term for "retard strength."

Hahaha, I think you mean, "Army Strong" ...hahaha. I have asked ton's of people if they knew about that term, and how I thought it was stupid that the Army changed their motto to "Army Strong" for that exact reason.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-06-15, 10:07 PM
Please note: I do not mean to offend anyone with mental disabilities or anyone who knows someone with mental disabilities. I just don't know the actual term for "retard strength."

Well, the FATAL review I read said that low-INT characters in that game get "Retard Strength."

So no, I doubt there's a standard slur for it other than that: If there were one, the FATAL guys would have known about it.

Jay R
2012-06-16, 10:08 AM
This increases as he goes up in levels. He uses his knowledge of the stereotypical behavior of different creatures as an advantage in all things, tracking, combat, damage, etc...

Nope. If she did this, she would not get any better at dealing with them, and in fact, she'd get worse.

Instead, she uses his knowledge of the actual behavior of these creatures.

What's the difference? She actually studies and learns. She learns what is false about the stereotypes, and substitutes actual experience and knowledge for prejudices. In this way, she gets better at dealing with them.


But how is it any different than a racist old man?

A racist old man uses his knowledge of stereotypical behavior, which is to say, prejudices. He cannot get any better at dealing with them because he isn't increasing his knowledge about them.

For example, the Ranger has taken Ogres as her favored enemies. She has learned a lot about them. Now if the ogres continue to attack the town, she will be the best one to defend it. But if some ogres show up who want to make peace, the Ranger could easily be the first one to believe them.

"These ogres aren't charging against the wind, and aren't in their standard battle formation. There's something different going on here."

Frenth Alunril
2012-06-16, 10:39 AM
But Jay R,

Aren't you justifying racism?

And... Aren't stereotypes based on their kernels of truth? And how is the study of something making you less racist? The "science" of eugenics was nothing more than racism in lab coats.

I submit that even with you're defense, rangers are still racists.

(plus there is a need for ridicule in humor, I hope you can see my statement is not an argument in Ernest disrespect for rangers, but rather a jolly just at the concepts off the class.)

huttj509
2012-06-16, 06:53 PM
But Jay R,

Aren't you justifying racism?

And... Aren't stereotypes based on their kernels of truth? And how is the study of something making you less racist? The "science" of eugenics was nothing more than racism in lab coats.

I submit that even with you're defense, rangers are still racists.

(plus there is a need for ridicule in humor, I hope you can see my statement is not an argument in Ernest disrespect for rangers, but rather a jolly just at the concepts off the class.)


Is it racist to know the tracks and movement patterns of deer as opposed to bears?

How about to know various LA gangs, their common behaviors, and be able to recognize that this group approaching you is or is not looking for a fight based on their body language and regular habits. Is that racist?

"Different" does not mean "better" or "worse." Studying the differences (physical and behavioral) among groups need not involve value judgments. It does need to involve the difference between average group traits, and individual traits. Men in general tend to have more upper body strength than women in general (group traits). I know plenty of ladies who could out-arm-wrestle me (individual traits).

I'm over 6' tall. I know someone who's a little over 5'. Is one better? If it comes to the top shelf, yes. If it comes to not whanging your head on a ladder sticking off a painter truck, yes. Inherently? No. I hate when I knock chandelier crystals loose, I'm more worried about breaking something than injuring myself.

GolemsVoice
2012-06-16, 08:17 PM
Yep. An elven ranger with favoured enemy: human would know "Those humans have marched for eight hours, they'll have to rest soon" or "Based on the interaction and body language, that guy is likely the leader of the group" or "These religious icons don't belong to any human culture I know, and these tracks are a bid broader than human feet, these are likely not humans."

His knowledge does NOT tell him "Them humans been taking our JOBS!" or "Humans are inherently lazy", although he might very well think that. It might also tell him that, in general, members of a species shouldn't act as smart as they did in a situation he observed, if that difference is written in the rules, for example, with a penalty to INT.

Frenth Alunril
2012-06-16, 10:41 PM
I guess you guys really like the ranger class. I still think it's racist. Even more Racist than what we consider racist, because, in this case, they are actually talking about Races! (fantastic races, but still)

(hehehe, furthermore, just to reiterate, it's a joke. I am not demeaning any actual rangers, and any rangers out there I may have offended, I'm sorry, your doctor will be in shortly.)

But truth be told, the study is purely for benefit in race warfare. If anything is defined as Racism, isn't that it?

I am just surprised so many people feel this way. I would think that it would take very little history to remember how racist we as people have been *in the past*, and add that as a story element to the game we play. When white settlers were hunting down natives in countries across the world, was that ranger-ing, or was that racism?

Craft (Cheese)
2012-06-16, 10:57 PM
I am just surprised so many people feel this way. I would think that it would take very little history to remember how racist we as people have been *in the past*, and add that as a story element to the game we play. When white settlers were hunting down natives in countries across the world, was that ranger-ing, or was that racism?

Sorry, but even the books disagree with you. The PHB entry on a ranger's Favored Enemy feature just says that the bonuses come from "experience" in dealing with the creature. Doesn't say anything about the ranger hating that creature, just that they deal with them often.

Heck, there's nothing out of the ordinary about a human ranger taking Favored Enemy (Human)!

Sidmen
2012-06-16, 11:23 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Think about studying how to kill Dwarves for years and years, following them back to their holes, dissecting them to learn their weaknesses, being super-observant about whether they're lying to you during every conversation. How can you not hate them?

Of course the core book doesn't go into it (since it white-washes genocide against all manner of species), and there is some room for rangers to accept that not all their chosen foe are scum - but thinking that all (or even a majority) of rangers truly love (or even normally tolerates) their chosen enemy is purely wishful thinking.

Frenth Alunril
2012-06-16, 11:30 PM
Just because it doesn't say racist doesn't mean it's not, but I concede if y'all admit ya can't take a joke.

Hahaha. I think it's funny that people defend this. Experience and research doesn't preclude the notion of racism. Even in the book it doesn't say it's not racist. In fact it doesn't mention motivation at all.

But, that's neither here nor there. It's a joke.

I was hoping others would say something funny about the other classes... Not stand up to the scrutiny of others.

Shoot Da Moon
2012-06-16, 11:47 PM
This reminds me of that blog spot by Zak S;


Have you ever noticed that each major class is "about" a certain vexed and contested section of the D&D rules?

Fighters are about combat and the (rarely imitated) simplicity and abstractness of the D&D combat system including hit points, the question of combat maneuvers vs. the (for some players dullness of the) simply "roll to hit" system.

Wizards are about magic and its unpredictable and unbalancing effects and the not-superheroness of the paraVancian fire-and-forget magic system.

Clerics are about religion and--what's more--about setting and about exactly how much of Medieval Europe are we assuming here?

Thieves are about cities and social games and about the skill system (which, taken to an extreme, works against the logic of a class system) and about the concept of the absolutely or simply situationally useless PC. (See the ninjafied versions of the Rogue in newer designs.)

Paladins are about alignment and about the gulf between medieval fantasy notions of the good and our modern and more moral-relativism influenced ideas of the good and how they do or do not overlap.

Assassins are about the problem and possible disruptiveness of evil PCs.

Druids, Barbarians and Rangers do have issues, but nothing to close too the heart of the game, I think. Except perhaps the question of specialization and how much is too much.

Comment?

huttj509
2012-06-17, 01:22 AM
From the Mirriam-Webster definition of racism.



1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Now, a ranger studying a favored enemy might qualify for the first part of definition 1, however, in many gaming systems, Race (actually Species) IS the primary determinant of traits and base capabilities. Giants have a faster natural land movement speed than halflings, for example.

As to definition 2, well, I guess "This tribe of Orcs usually favors ambushes and surprise in their fighting style, be careful of pit traps in particular" is pre-judging the group, but it does not carry the connotation normally associated with the word.

While fantasy worlds can definitely have racism ("filthy piggarts"), and rangers can definitely be racist, I don't think the careful study of a particular species strengths, weaknesses, and habits in and of itself qualifies. It IS "different from a racist old man." In DnD, Elves DO have a different biology from Humans (wish I didn't need sleep), and from a genetics standpoint it IS amazing the number of creature types that can interbreed.

It isn't that people can't take a joke, it's that the joke doesn't hold up. Adventurer tendency to go wipe out entire monster villages with few questions asked does make an interesting juxtaposition to RL moral values. The Ranger favored enemy ability does not.

Lord.Sorasen
2012-06-17, 01:59 AM
One class I definitely want to talk about is the monk. And not about its being weaker than other classes really, it's rather the style. Monks are supposed to be these Zen warriors, masters of form and mind. But what do we get? Flurry of Blows makes you less likely to hit but gives you more attacks. Unarmed strike dice increase make your fists powerful but inaccurate, and unable to utilize strength or overcome damage reduction. Your armor class will be lower than that of the fighter, making you easier to hit, but you do run faster. You don't gain many skill points, meaning you aren't really all that good at mundane tasks.

When you really look at it, the monk's stats line him up much better with a berserker than someone with real discipline.

I have to say I agree with people's "ranger not racist, being good at fighting a specific type of monster does not mean they are or are not a racist" thing.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-06-17, 02:38 AM
When you really look at it, the monk's stats line him up much better with a berserker than someone with real discipline.


That's how I prefer to view them anyway. Besides the zen, master of form and mind style monk don't really theme wise fit into the traditional medieval Europe fantasy setting either. They go much better in an eastern setting with ninjas and samurai's theme wise.
Also, I saw this awesome "monk" build a while ago. Someone had built a barbarian into a monk, it was different but awesome, and very much in line with the "berserker" feel.

Lord.Sorasen
2012-06-17, 03:27 AM
That's how I prefer to view them anyway. Besides the zen, master of form and mind style monk don't really theme wise fit into the traditional medieval Europe fantasy setting either. They go much better in an eastern setting with ninjas and samurai's theme wise.
Also, I saw this awesome "monk" build a while ago. Someone had built a barbarian into a monk, it was different but awesome, and very much in line with the "berserker" feel.

I usually used rogues in my monk builds. For that whole "finesse" feel. Both are valid ways of looking at it. The interesting thing about classes is that the quirks in design often grant that class unique flavors that seem to almost become the class.

Knaight
2012-06-17, 04:15 AM
Well, the FATAL review I read said that low-INT characters in that game get "Retard Strength."

So no, I doubt there's a standard slur for it other than that: If there were one, the FATAL guys would have known about it.
That FATAL used the same term is not an endorsement of said term. It's an indicator that the term in use is probably not the best choice.

Sorry, but even the books disagree with you. The PHB entry on a ranger's Favored Enemy feature just says that the bonuses come from "experience" in dealing with the creature. Doesn't say anything about the ranger hating that creature, just that they deal with them often.

Heck, there's nothing out of the ordinary about a human ranger taking Favored Enemy (Human)!
Technically speaking, there is some verbiage regarding how taking one's own race is a hallmark of evil individuals. Sure, it's incredibly stupid, but the books are probably not the best source here. Or rather, it's probably better to go with this excerpt:

At 1st level, a ranger may select a type of creature from among those given on Table: Ranger Favored Enemies. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills against creatures of this type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against such creatures.
If it was racism, Sense Motive wouldn't be on there. As a rule, bigots have a terrible understanding of actual motives, and project all sorts of nonsensical "agendas". When it comes to sussing out the truth, it's a penalty that is warranted, and one that just keeps getting worse and worse. Bluff is also questionable, as is Listen.

Roland St. Jude
2012-06-17, 09:11 AM
Sheriff: Locked for review. Please avoid real world religion and politics, even when it relates to gaming.