Quick questions regarding generic mmorpg classes

[AquaBlade]

1) Is it reasonable for anyone to like a wide variety of classes? For example, I like rogue and warrior classes, but that's like covering 4 out of 8 classes in guild wars 2 lol.

2) would a stealthy mage be considered a rogue with magic abilities? Or a mage with stealth abilities?
I was only confused because like in the mesmer class in guild wars 2, even though they seem like a rogue-mage hybrid, they seem to lean more to the mage side. So I was confused with figuring out exactly what class leans more to what class.

3) Where do you think engineers fit in the traditional archetypes of rpgs?

4) And rangers are generally seen as a subclass of rogues right? The way dev's seem to categorize classes, for example, the cleric class, it seems to me that they may even make a whole category of nature-related classes, which would probably include shamans and rangers even though they don't share much in common combat-wise.

5) I just want to make sure of one thing though. So basically, no matter how dev's categorize their classes, for example, how they made one branch of the cleric class seem to be basically a hybrid warrior and cleric and even have more emphasis on the warrior side, that cleric class can perfectly fit under the warrior category under the traditional archetype system right?

6) while the clerics may have a lot of classes that branch out, it would perfectly make sense if one of those classes also happen to be a class of another category such as warriors, since every dev has a different way to express the general concept behind each category and it's common for such categorizes to blend in the middle somewhere right??

7) do hunters have to have a pet? Or can they just be though of as an archer?

8) The same way archers are related to nature, what are rogues and warriors related to?

[Craft (Cheese)]

1) Is it reasonable for anyone to like a wide variety of classes? For example, I like rogue and warrior classes, but that's like covering 4 out of 8 classes in guild wars 2 lol.

Of course.


2) would a stealthy mage be considered a rogue with magic abilities? Or a mage with stealth abilities?
I was only confused because like in the mesmer class in guild wars 2, even though they seem like a rogue-mage hybrid, they seem to lean more to the mage side. So I was confused with figuring out exactly what class leans more to what class.

I dunno anything about Guild Wars 2, but I can tell you this depends on whether you define rogues and mages by their fluff, or by their gameplay role. An illusionist who uses their spells to hide and ambush people is a rogue in terms of role, but definitely a mage in terms of fluff.


3) Where do you think engineers fit in the traditional archetypes of rpgs?

It depends on how they're implemented. If they're like D&D's "a gadget for anything" Artificers, I'd put them squarely in Mage. If their skills are non-combat, then I'd put them in a separate archetype entirely.


4) And rangers are generally seen as a subclass of rogues right? The way dev's seem to categorize classes, for example, the cleric class, it seems to me that they may even make a whole category of nature-related classes, which would probably include shamans and rangers even though they don't share much in common combat-wise.

The rogue/ranger connection seems to be a rather recent thing: The whole hack-and-slash whirlwind thing was purely a Ranger shtick until game designers decided to give thieves that ability too.

As for a nature-based class group, D&D 4th edition already does this with the Primal power source: Druid, Shaman, Barbarian, Warden. (Ranger is instead Martial because they focus on the "I'm a dual-wielding maniac!" aspect rather than the "Friend to animals" aspect.)


5) I just want to make sure of one thing though. So basically, no matter how dev's categorize their classes, for example, how they made one branch of the cleric class seem to be basically a hybrid warrior and cleric and even have more emphasis on the warrior side, that cleric class can perfectly fit under the warrior category under the traditional archetype system right?

Originally, warrior-with-healing is what the cleric was but these days that seems to be how the Paladin is interpreted, with the cleric being a pure-healer/buffer.


6) while the clerics may have a lot of classes that branch out, it would perfectly make sense if one of those classes also happen to be a class of another category such as warriors, since every dev has a different way to express the general concept behind each category and it's common for such categorizes to blend in the middle somewhere right??

I'm afraid I don't understand this question.


7) do hunters have to have a pet? Or can they just be though of as an archer?

Not really: D&D 4e makes having a pet a totally optional thing for a ranger (A not-often-taken one, as it requires giving up one of your best damage-dealing abilities).


8) The same way archers are related to nature, what are rogues and warriors related to?

I think this question's already been answered by my other answers.

[AquaBlade]

thanks for the insight.

2) what exactly is fluff?

3) I thought that engineers would fit as rogues as well. Because I can visualize rogues as experts at utilizing a wide variety of gadgets. And I see them as warriors in some cases as well in games like half-life and iron man.
And one question while we're talking about this, would gundam be considered warrior?

5) lol, I see games like dragon nest and ragnarok online with their monk being an offshoot of the acolyte class, and it seems like those classes can be under the warrior class in another game.

6) sorry for the crappy wording, basically I mean in games like dragon nest and ragnarok online where certain subclasses of clerics seem to have way more typical warrior/combat skills than traditional cleric skills, those subclasses can always be a subclass of the warrior class in another game right?

thanks for the response once again.

[NecroRebel]

"Fluff" is a slang term for the pieces of a work that aren't relevant to how it functions, and is the opposite of "crunch," which is how the thing functions. For instance, two characters might both be able to do something that deals 30 heat damage to an enemy; that information (30 damage to 1 enemy) is the crunch. One character might deal that damage with a fireball, while another might deal that damage with a beam of holy light; this is fluff. The fireball and beam of holy light may be functionally identical, but the justification for what they do differs. The justification for how things do what they do is fluff.

Archetypes themselves tend to vary on the system and story. Are "rogues" those who use skill and evasion to do hurt enemies without getting hurt themselves, or are they stealthy? Is there really a fundamental difference between a priest and a wizard, since both cause supernatural effects, especially if both are capable of casting fire on their foes and healing friends? So, how you define the archetypes changes what archetype any given thing fits into. If all combat is done in giant robots, a durable robot might be a "warrior," an artillery piece a "mage," a stealthy robot a "rogue," and so forth.

The Monk is demonstrative of another issue with archetypes; two classes with the same name in different settings might be very different things. The Guild Wars 1 Monk, for instance, is a definite mage- or priest-type, with their entire purpose devoted to spells that cure or protect allies or that deal holy damage to enemies. The D&D Monk, though, is a barehanded physical fighter. Even more, the D&D Monk might be called a warrior/rogue mix, as they tend to be evasive fighters who can be stealthy, while in Final Fantasy monks, while still unarmed and unarmored physical fighters, are more reliant on an ability to tank blows, having high hit points and armor.

In different games, the same thing might have different names, and different things might have the same name. There are traditional ways of naming things, for instance heavily-armored sword-and-shield users tend to be called knights, but that's not a solid requirement. Knights sometimes have holy magic, for instance, but sometimes don't. I'm not quite sure what you want to hear with question 6; different developers are different.

[AquaBlade]

"Fluff" is a slang term for the pieces of a work that aren't relevant to how it functions, and is the opposite of "crunch," which is how the thing functions. For instance, two characters might both be able to do something that deals 30 heat damage to an enemy; that information (30 damage to 1 enemy) is the crunch. One character might deal that damage with a fireball, while another might deal that damage with a beam of holy light; this is fluff. The fireball and beam of holy light may be functionally identical, but the justification for what they do differs. The justification for how things do what they do is fluff.

Archetypes themselves tend to vary on the system and story. Are "rogues" those who use skill and evasion to do hurt enemies without getting hurt themselves, or are they stealthy? Is there really a fundamental difference between a priest and a wizard, since both cause supernatural effects, especially if both are capable of casting fire on their foes and healing friends? So, how you define the archetypes changes what archetype any given thing fits into. If all combat is done in giant robots, a durable robot might be a "warrior," an artillery piece a "mage," a stealthy robot a "rogue," and so forth.

The Monk is demonstrative of another issue with archetypes; two classes with the same name in different settings might be very different things. The Guild Wars 1 Monk, for instance, is a definite mage- or priest-type, with their entire purpose devoted to spells that cure or protect allies or that deal holy damage to enemies. The D&D Monk, though, is a barehanded physical fighter. Even more, the D&D Monk might be called a warrior/rogue mix, as they tend to be evasive fighters who can be stealthy, while in Final Fantasy monks, while still unarmed and unarmored physical fighters, are more reliant on an ability to tank blows, having high hit points and armor.

In different games, the same thing might have different names, and different things might have the same name. There are traditional ways of naming things, for instance heavily-armored sword-and-shield users tend to be called knights, but that's not a solid requirement. Knights sometimes have holy magic, for instance, but sometimes don't. I'm not quite sure what you want to hear with question 6; different developers are different.

thanks.
as for the robot thing, why would a artillery robot be a mage?
Like when I look at stuff like tanks, it looks more like a warrior to me than a glass-cannon mage.

And just one final question in addition to those posted in the first post:
How would you relate traditional mmorpg archetypes, warrior, rogue(including archers), mages, and clerics with classes in other genre? for example, class-based shooters in games like team fortress 2 or battlefield 3. what would each class relate to and why?

thanks a lot. I can't really see how mages relate to anything. While many people claim that they are mostly ranged aoe and nukers, i think this role can vary a lot and is not really the base defining aspect. For example, in guild wars 2, they present having even warriors being able to deal ranged aoe damage.

In addition, I feel that roles can be taken by multiple classes. Like, warriors can be tanks and dps and I've seen them even as support with guardian-type classes. While rogues can serve as tanks, with their dodging skills, and dps and even support as they disarm traps and such.

[Talakeal]

7) do hunters have to have a pet? Or can they just be thought of as an archer?



Normally an archer is significantly better in ranged combat than in close combat.

While fighting solo most enemies will rush the archer and get into close combat fairly quickly. So unless the archer has such high ranged damage that it can cripple the enemy before getting into close combat to offset the poor close combat damage than the archer will be a pretty terrible solo class.

Of course, on the other hand an archer which does have high enough ranged damage to balance out its close combat ability while solo would do insane damage in a group.

A pet allows an archer to never need to "solo" as they always have someone to keep the monster away from them.

So if you want an archer who is good at ranged combat you have one of four options:
1: Accept that the archer sucks solo.
2: Accept that the archer is overpowered in groups.
3: Give the hunter a pet.
4: Give the hunter a set of skills which allow them to escape from close combat and kite the enemy while soloing.

[NecroRebel]

thanks.
as for the robot thing, why would a artillery robot be a mage?
Like when I look at stuff like tanks, it looks more like a warrior to me than a glass-cannon mage.Well, if everything is a tank or otherwise what we would consider heavily-armored, you have to look at the other things that the archetypes are known for. In most games, mages' primary role is as multi-target or long-range damage-dealers. Artillery pieces are primarily meant to destroy their targets from outside the enemy's range, meaning they, too, are long-range damage-dealers. So, if you're building a game with the traditional tank-sneaky-healer-blaster roles (which warriors, thieves/rogues, priests, and wizards traditionally fill in fantasy settings) in a giant robot combat setting, the main "blaster" type would be artillery.


And just one final question in addition to those posted in the first post:
How would you relate traditional mmorpg archetypes, warrior, rogue(including archers), mages, and clerics with classes in other genre? for example, class-based shooters in games like team fortress 2 or battlefield 3. what would each class relate to and why?I would relate them based on what they do, though it's not always possible. The primary thing that warriors are traditionally supposed to do is take hits, so the TF2 Heavy would be a "warrior." "Rogues" are typically meant either for finding enemies, harassing enemies as skirmishers, or, basically, assassinating tactically-important targets before defenders can react, so the scout, spy, and pyro would be "rogues." "Mages," as mentioned before, are typically long-ranged or area damage-dealers, so the pyro would probably be the best fit, though mages also tend to do debuffs, summons, and out-of-combat utility abilities, so the engineer might fit there. "Priests" usually are healers and buffers, and can often summon, too, so the medic and engineer can be called priests as well.


thanks a lot. I can't really see how mages relate to anything. While many people claim that they are mostly ranged aoe and nukers, i think this role can vary a lot and is not really the base defining aspect. For example, in guild wars 2, they present having even warriors being able to deal ranged aoe damage.No class, unless intentionally made to fit an archetype exactly (and probably not even then) will fit an archetype exactly. So what if a warrior can deal AoE damage? That doesn't change the fact that mages are archetypically considered to be AoE damage-dealers. It just means that GW2's classes aren't exactly stereotypical.


In addition, I feel that roles can be taken by multiple classes. Like, warriors can be tanks and dps and I've seen them even as support with guardian-type classes. While rogues can serve as tanks, with their dodging skills, and dps and even support as they disarm traps and such.

Sure. What of it? Archetypes are just ideas, and tend more towards saying, "this is what these things should do" rather than "this is what these things shouldn't do." An archetypical warrior is a durable melee combatant. As long as they're that, a character could be called a warrior. The archetypes aren't mutually exclusive, nor are they hard rules; humans are capable of finding similarities in things that are nothing alike, and we group things by the similarities we find, whether they "really" exist or not.

[Hiro Protagonest]

...This seems to be Guild Wars 2-specific. Which means it belongs in another section.

Also, the devs were really trying not to make these classes be defined the same as WoW classes. Hunters can melee. Warriors have bows and rifles. Only Guardian and Paladin can really be compared, but that's because both can fill multiple roles. Oh, and Guardian gets ranged attacks from staffs and scepters.

[AquaBlade]

Well, if everything is a tank or otherwise what we would consider heavily-armored, you have to look at the other things that the archetypes are known for. In most games, mages' primary role is as multi-target or long-range damage-dealers. Artillery pieces are primarily meant to destroy their targets from outside the enemy's range, meaning they, too, are long-range damage-dealers. So, if you're building a game with the traditional tank-sneaky-healer-blaster roles (which warriors, thieves/rogues, priests, and wizards traditionally fill in fantasy settings) in a giant robot combat setting, the main "blaster" type would be artillery.

I would relate them based on what they do, though it's not always possible. The primary thing that warriors are traditionally supposed to do is take hits, so the TF2 Heavy would be a "warrior." "Rogues" are typically meant either for finding enemies, harassing enemies as skirmishers, or, basically, assassinating tactically-important targets before defenders can react, so the scout, spy, and pyro would be "rogues." "Mages," as mentioned before, are typically long-ranged or area damage-dealers, so the pyro would probably be the best fit, though mages also tend to do debuffs, summons, and out-of-combat utility abilities, so the engineer might fit there. "Priests" usually are healers and buffers, and can often summon, too, so the medic and engineer can be called priests as well.

No class, unless intentionally made to fit an archetype exactly (and probably not even then) will fit an archetype exactly. So what if a warrior can deal AoE damage? That doesn't change the fact that mages are archetypically considered to be AoE damage-dealers. It just means that GW2's classes aren't exactly stereotypical.



Sure. What of it? Archetypes are just ideas, and tend more towards saying, "this is what these things should do" rather than "this is what these things shouldn't do." An archetypical warrior is a durable melee combatant. As long as they're that, a character could be called a warrior. The archetypes aren't mutually exclusive, nor are they hard rules; humans are capable of finding similarities in things that are nothing alike, and we group things by the similarities we find, whether they "really" exist or not.

lol thanks. Now I understand what an archetype actually is.
As for the relating thing, are the main things that characterize the archetype: roles, stats, skills/abilities, equipments, and survivability?

Would it be easier if I were to examine whether or not a class from another genre can or cannot be related to a specific class in mmorpgs?
For example, me liking warriors and rogues the most, would it be easier to figure out exactly which classes can never be considered warrior or rogue-like ?

Can the artillery ever be considered warrior or rogue-like? If we look at a basic war setting, the artillery would usually be the tankiest one.
However, aren't a lot of things in modern warfare long-ranged and is that really the best factor to consider? Because for example, we would have to relate the assault class with the warrior class even though it's melee.
What would be the best factor to consider when relating classes cross-genre?

thanks.

[NecroRebel]

Archetypes can be categorized by anything, everything, and nothing. Mostly they're just the roles that are played. The specific stats, skills, abilities, and equipment vary on the game, genre, whatever, and survivability isn't really important, either. Sometimes some roles are harder to kill than others, but not always, and sometimes the roles you'd "expect" to be easier to kill are harder. In 3.5-edition D&D, for instance, wizards are effectively impossible to kill, while warriors routinely get one-shotted.

It's easier to examine a specific class or character type and see what archetypes it fits rather than to try to fit it into a single one. What, specifically, is it that you like about warriors and rogues, for instance? If you can identify what it is you like, you can identify the character options in other games that best fit your preferences. Then you can ignore archetypes (which aren't really helpful for that purpose) and focus on what's important.

"Artillery" is a fairly general term in games, but usually wouldn't fit the warrior and rogue types very well. It usually means very long-range and high-damage, while the warrior is typically relatively short-ranged, and the rogue is stealth-based. On the other hand, a sniper might be called an artillery-piece rogue; stealth-based, strikes high-value targets in ways that are difficult to detect before they occur, and very long range.

Modern warfare is typically conducted out of melee range, yes, but that doesn't mean that some combat takes place at longer ranges than others. Actual artillery, whether simple cannon-launched shells or rockets, can be fired from beyond the horizon, while tanks and air-to-surface weapons tend to need line of sight. When combat could happen from miles away, closing to less than a thousand feet is pretty close to melee even if that's still a tremendous distance.

The best way to compare classes cross-genre would probably be to not compare them, but if you had to compare them, you'd probably do it by what they're meant to do. It sounds to me, though, like you're looking more for advice of what types you should play, and that leads back to what I said before: you need to identify what you like about the classes you like, and then identify what the classes in new games you pick up are like that.

[AquaBlade]

Archetypes can be categorized by anything, everything, and nothing. Mostly they're just the roles that are played. The specific stats, skills, abilities, and equipment vary on the game, genre, whatever, and survivability isn't really important, either. Sometimes some roles are harder to kill than others, but not always, and sometimes the roles you'd "expect" to be easier to kill are harder. In 3.5-edition D&D, for instance, wizards are effectively impossible to kill, while warriors routinely get one-shotted.

It's easier to examine a specific class or character type and see what archetypes it fits rather than to try to fit it into a single one. What, specifically, is it that you like about warriors and rogues, for instance? If you can identify what it is you like, you can identify the character options in other games that best fit your preferences. Then you can ignore archetypes (which aren't really helpful for that purpose) and focus on what's important.

"Artillery" is a fairly general term in games, but usually wouldn't fit the warrior and rogue types very well. It usually means very long-range and high-damage, while the warrior is typically relatively short-ranged, and the rogue is stealth-based. On the other hand, a sniper might be called an artillery-piece rogue; stealth-based, strikes high-value targets in ways that are difficult to detect before they occur, and very long range.

Modern warfare is typically conducted out of melee range, yes, but that doesn't mean that some combat takes place at longer ranges than others. Actual artillery, whether simple cannon-launched shells or rockets, can be fired from beyond the horizon, while tanks and air-to-surface weapons tend to need line of sight. When combat could happen from miles away, closing to less than a thousand feet is pretty close to melee even if that's still a tremendous distance.

The best way to compare classes cross-genre would probably be to not compare them, but if you had to compare them, you'd probably do it by what they're meant to do. It sounds to me, though, like you're looking more for advice of what types you should play, and that leads back to what I said before: you need to identify what you like about the classes you like, and then identify what the classes in new games you pick up are like that.

Oh, I always thought of rogues not primarily as stealthy but also as agile nimble fighters.
Well, that's the problem lol. I don't really know what I like about warriors and rogues. I mean, because these two archetypes are basically polar opposites in terms of combat style, and both archetypes feature both melee and ranged capabilities, the only thing they share in common is physical combat. And because I also love games like Thief, I probably don't only like physical damage, since I enjoy games where they don't have much combat like in Thief. So I guess, I would have to limit it down to non-magic combat? I don't really know >.>
I mean, I also like characters like sonic and tend to think of him as a rogue being more of the nimble fighter with speed as its primary attribute even though its more of a platformer game.

[Arbane]

You might find this useful: Fantasy Character Classes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses). (WARNING: TV Tropes link. Do not click if you need to do anything important in the next three hours.)

[NikitaDarkstar]

thanks for the insight.

3) I thought that engineers would fit as rogues as well. Because I can visualize rogues as experts at utilizing a wide variety of gadgets. And I see them as warriors in some cases as well in games like half-life and iron man.
And one question while we're talking about this, would gundam be considered warrior?

5) lol, I see games like dragon nest and ragnarok online with their monk being an offshoot of the acolyte class, and it seems like those classes can be under the warrior class in another game.


3) Not really. An engineer is someone who designs and builds something. It might be a trap, it might be a weapon it might be a machine, whatever. A rogue is well, a thief and might know how to use the things the engineer designed and built, but it doesn't make him an engineer, it at best makes him an operator. (He knows how to use it, and is possibly better at figuring out when it's useful, but ask him to build it and he's lost.)

5) I don't know about Dragon Nest, but as an old, old, old Ragnarok Online player I can tell you this, you can't compare it to a game like D&D, heck you can't compare it to most other games at all (Except possibly Aion). What it does is let you pick one general area you want to work in and then picka supportive/defensive role or an offensive role. For the monk example. The monk and priest both stem from the acolyte, the monk is the offense, the priest is the defense. Swordsmen, the crusaders are the defense, the knights are the offense, and so on and so forth (Only real mystery is ho archers and hunters related to bards and dancers...). But they're tied together by that games lore.
D&D's classes are tied to it's lore. Guild Wars classes to it's and so on and so forth. What they do have in common is it's genre, so it's going to share certain tropes, such as priests/clerics heal, rogues are sneaky back-stabbers, hunters/rangers are woodsmen etc. That works within the fantasy genre. But you can't throw in other genres (such as half-life and gundam as you mentioned) and ask what fantasy trope they fall within. They're not fantasy so they can't be covered by a fantasy trope.

[AquaBlade]

well by that tvtrope link, rangers aren't just archers, they're primarily woodmen and skilled at surviving in the wild lol. And the beastmaster ranger specializes in commanding animals and pets.
But even as an offensive cleric, doesn't the monk seem to have a lot more combat skills than healing skills? I feel that it could always fall under the warrior category in any other game.
As for engineers, in most games, you don't see them building things, you just see them utilizing a lot of gadgets lol. Like for example, in ratchet and clank, the guy is just buying weapons and using a whole lot of gadgets even though he's an engineer. As for the rogue archetype, do they have to be sneaky? Like, it can always be a pirate-type class where they're agile duelists.

thanks.

[AquaBlade]

and also, a gunner is usually shoehorned into the ranger archetype right?

[NecroRebel]

Rogues can be anything. They're usually sneaky, but not always. Actually, if you wanted to get really down into the most basic form, a rogue is just anyone whose tactics and skills are "dishonest" somehow, or similar to those a criminal might have. Again, I think you're wanting archetypes to do something that they don't. They're more an aid for the designer of the game than anything else and won't significantly help you design or understand characters. It's sort of like they're meant to be used for "what sort of terrain do I build this building on," while you're trying to make them be "what sort of building is this?" You probably won't find a castle in a swamp, but there's a thousand types of buildings that can be built on a grassland, none of which really have much in common.

Usually when there is a "gunner" archetype the "ranger" archetype isn't used or doesn't exist due to different genres; "gunners" tend to appear only in places where the general tech-level is 19th-century or later, since they tend to use automatic weapons, but that also tends to imply that most wilderness has been tamed, so woodsmen aren't really needed. There might be woodsmen that use hunting rifles, but that's still very different from a gunslinger.

[AquaBlade]

Rogues can be anything. They're usually sneaky, but not always. Actually, if you wanted to get really down into the most basic form, a rogue is just anyone whose tactics and skills are "dishonest" somehow, or similar to those a criminal might have. Again, I think you're wanting archetypes to do something that they don't. They're more an aid for the designer of the game than anything else and won't significantly help you design or understand characters. It's sort of like they're meant to be used for "what sort of terrain do I build this building on," while you're trying to make them be "what sort of building is this?" You probably won't find a castle in a swamp, but there's a thousand types of buildings that can be built on a grassland, none of which really have much in common.

Usually when there is a "gunner" archetype the "ranger" archetype isn't used or doesn't exist due to different genres; "gunners" tend to appear only in places where the general tech-level is 19th-century or later, since they tend to use automatic weapons, but that also tends to imply that most wilderness has been tamed, so woodsmen aren't really needed. There might be woodsmen that use hunting rifles, but that's still very different from a gunslinger.

yeah, so the best way is to figure out what about rogues and warriors I like?
Considering that I like both of them, the most reasonable answer would be physical aptitude considering that it's what both of them share in common?
And rogues don't always have to be involved in combat like with thieves and such. And in addition, I'm not really interested in a ranger who relies on pets more than he is involved in combat himself.

[snoopy13a]

3) Where do you think engineers fit in the traditional archetypes of rpgs?



As NPCs. Engineers build bridges, roads, siege engines, etc. Combat engineers are very important, and their jobs can be dangerous (pushing a siege engine into place or trying to construct a bridge over a contested river aren't the safest of tasks) but these jobs aren't traditionally beloved by players.

[Hiro Protagonest]

As NPCs. Engineers build bridges, roads, siege engines, etc. Combat engineers are very important, and their jobs can be dangerous (pushing a siege engine into place or trying to construct a bridge over a contested river aren't the safest of tasks) but these jobs aren't traditionally beloved by players.

This is specifically the GW2 Engineer. Not historical engineers. Which is why this really should be in Gaming (Other), and marked more clearly. :smallannoyed:

[AquaBlade]

This is specifically the GW2 Engineer. Not historical engineers. Which is why this really should be in Gaming (Other), and marked more clearly. :smallannoyed:

lol I don't mean just gw2 engineers. Engineers are in a lot of other games like in dragon nest and team fortress 2.
Btw, I just foudn out that rangers are defined as woodsmen and aren't necessarily archers since they can be beastmasters as well lol >.> I always thought of them as a subclass of rogues.

[Urpriest]

lol I don't mean just gw2 engineers. Engineers are in a lot of other games like in dragon nest and team fortress 2.
Btw, I just foudn out that rangers are defined as woodsmen and aren't necessarily archers since they can be beastmasters as well lol >.> I always thought of them as a subclass of rogues.

...there aren't facts about this sort of thing, you do realize that right? Words are words, they mean whatever they're used to mean. It's impossible to "realize" that rangers "are defined as" anything, because that's not how tropes work.

[Eldan]

And, in addition to what Urpriest said: I can probably think of a dozen different games with something called "Ranger" in them. And they are probably different in each one.

[AquaBlade]

...there aren't facts about this sort of thing, you do realize that right? Words are words, they mean whatever they're used to mean. It's impossible to "realize" that rangers "are defined as" anything, because that's not how tropes work.

what do you mean how tropes work???
I always thought of rangers as just archers.

[Urpriest]

what do you mean how tropes work???
I always thought of rangers as just archers.

Why? Aragorn doesn't use a bow very often.

[Eldan]

Not all rangers are archers, and not all archers are rangers.

NCR Rangers in Fallout: New Vegas use guns. As does everyone.
Most Texas Rangers probably didn't use bows either.
Fire Emblem Rangers use swords and fight on horseback.
Everquest rangers were melee specialists.

And so on, and so on.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Park rangers are kinda like police.

Wild west rangers were gunslingers.

WoW Hunters are archers with a hunting pet.

Medieval rangers were bowhunters and trappers who sometimes trained and owned hunting dogs.

Renaissance rangers were like medieval rangers, except they usually carried guns or crossbows.

Modern hunters carry wooden bows, fiberglass bows, compound bows, crossbows, and guns, and they sometimes use bait to lure animals. Some have a hound for tracking.

GW2 Rangers/Hunters are basically gishes with nature magic and a pet.

All real life rangers are either trackers, or have dogs trained for tracking. Because the deer isn't just going to fall over when hit with an arrow, even with a killing shot.

[NecroRebel]

what do you mean how tropes work???
I always thought of rangers as just archers.

Tropes - patterns in stories - are descriptors of the way writers write, tools that they use to build their fictions that work as shorthands for their audience.

Basically, you're looking at it the opposite way that you should. You say you discovered that "rangers are defined as woodsmen," but it's actually more like "woodsmen are often called rangers." You're actually absolutely correct in believing that archers are rangers, because archers are also often called rangers. So are "beastmaster" characters who tame wild animals and use them to fight. There is no "rangers are necessarily X" because a vast and disparate set of character types are, correctly, called rangers.

I was going to talk about this last night, but I wasn't sure if I could get my point across, and I'm still not, but I'll try now. A few years ago, I was taking a class about the philosophy of language (phil. major at university I was). My professor made the point that we call things by the same word, and even represent them by the same concept, when they might not really be anything alike. An example he gave was "cup;" the normal sense of the word is "an item that is used to drink liquids out of that is roughly cylindrical." A teacup tends not to be cylindrical, though. A measuring cup might be any number of shapes, many of them not cylindrical, and isn't used to drink liquids out of. A suction cup isn't used to drink liquids out of nor is it cylindrical at all. A cup of sugar isn't relevant to liquids, drinking, a shape, or even an item at all. There are other examples as well. These things are all cups, but there is nothing really in common between all of them. One word, even one concept, can be used for many, many different things, and assuming that exactly one of those is what that word "really" is is simply misguided.

[AquaBlade]

Tropes - patterns in stories - are descriptors of the way writers write, tools that they use to build their fictions that work as shorthands for their audience.

Basically, you're looking at it the opposite way that you should. You say you discovered that "rangers are defined as woodsmen," but it's actually more like "woodsmen are often called rangers." You're actually absolutely correct in believing that archers are rangers, because archers are also often called rangers. So are "beastmaster" characters who tame wild animals and use them to fight. There is no "rangers are necessarily X" because a vast and disparate set of character types are, correctly, called rangers.

I was going to talk about this last night, but I wasn't sure if I could get my point across, and I'm still not, but I'll try now. A few years ago, I was taking a class about the philosophy of language (phil. major at university I was). My professor made the point that we call things by the same word, and even represent them by the same concept, when they might not really be anything alike. An example he gave was "cup;" the normal sense of the word is "an item that is used to drink liquids out of that is roughly cylindrical." A teacup tends not to be cylindrical, though. A measuring cup might be any number of shapes, many of them not cylindrical, and isn't used to drink liquids out of. A suction cup isn't used to drink liquids out of nor is it cylindrical at all. A cup of sugar isn't relevant to liquids, drinking, a shape, or even an item at all. There are other examples as well. These things are all cups, but there is nothing really in common between all of them. One word, even one concept, can be used for many, many different things, and assuming that exactly one of those is what that word "really" is is simply misguided.

that makes sense. but however, isn't the fundamental concept behind all the classes basically the same? Like for example, with the rogue archetype, even though different dev's have different ideas in game mechanics using stealth, or depicting the rogue as an agile fighter, they're all little things to get across the idea that the rogue is a nonconformist fighter who fights using unorthodox methods. And in addition, they're also the outcasts of society who defies the law. Even though one game may give them stealth while another gives them agility and even another gives them ability to talk well, they're all trying to get across the underlying fundamental idea behind the rogue archetype.
the same way the thing about the cup. The fundamental idea behind the cup is something used to hold something else to make life easier. However, they're plenty of ways to utilize such an object that makes our life easier. Instead of putting our head under the faucet, we "cup" our hands and drink out of it. Those measuring cups are all used to hold something to measure something in order to make life easier as well.

Would it be viable at all to figure out if one class fits under the rogue/warrior at all?

[NecroRebel]

that makes sense. but however, isn't the fundamental concept behind all the classes basically the same? Like for example, with the rogue archetype, even though different dev's have different ideas in game mechanics using stealth, or depicting the rogue as an agile fighter, they're all little things to get across the idea that the rogue is a nonconformist fighter who fights using unorthodox methods. And in addition, they're also the outcasts of society who defies the law. Even though one game may give them stealth while another gives them agility and even another gives them ability to talk well, they're all trying to get across the underlying fundamental idea behind the rogue archetype.The point is that concept and execution are very different things, and also that two concepts may be named the same. If you're trying to compare different things of the same name that were designed using different concepts and thus have nothing in common, you're not going to get very far, and even if the initial concept was the same, the execution may be so different as to make them incomparable as well. So...


Would it be viable at all to figure out if one class fits under the rogue/warrior at all?

Not really. Particularly if you're trying to fit a class from a genre that doesn't have concepts of rogue or warrior, but even within genres that do, it's just not very helpful to try to do. Which is why I earlier suggested that you try to determine what it is you like, what your play style tends to be like, and choose what to play based on that rather than trying to shoehorn yourself into playing an archetype that may not play a way you enjoy at all.

For an example, in action-type games, I prefer to play relatively quick ranged attackers, particularly ones with a lot of ability to handle different situations. Mage-thief-types tend to be my preferred classes; magic gives versatility and ranged attacks, while pure mages tend to be somewhat more sluggish and less evasive than I prefer. On the other hand, if there was a game where the "thief" classes were all cutlass-wielding pirates and "mages" just set fire to things and nothing else, I wouldn't go for a combination of the two just because I usually like mage-thieves if there was a class of priests (perhaps of winds) who moved fast and fought at range, because the latter fits my preferred combat style better. The pirate mages, in that hypothetical game, wouldn't play like I like to, so unless I wanted to try something different, I wouldn't play them.

[AquaBlade]

The point is that concept and execution are very different things, and also that two concepts may be named the same. If you're trying to compare different things of the same name that were designed using different concepts and thus have nothing in common, you're not going to get very far, and even if the initial concept was the same, the execution may be so different as to make them incomparable as well. So...



Not really. Particularly if you're trying to fit a class from a genre that doesn't have concepts of rogue or warrior, but even within genres that do, it's just not very helpful to try to do. Which is why I earlier suggested that you try to determine what it is you like, what your play style tends to be like, and choose what to play based on that rather than trying to shoehorn yourself into playing an archetype that may not play a way you enjoy at all.

For an example, in action-type games, I prefer to play relatively quick ranged attackers, particularly ones with a lot of ability to handle different situations. Mage-thief-types tend to be my preferred classes; magic gives versatility and ranged attacks, while pure mages tend to be somewhat more sluggish and less evasive than I prefer. On the other hand, if there was a game where the "thief" classes were all cutlass-wielding pirates and "mages" just set fire to things and nothing else, I wouldn't go for a combination of the two just because I usually like mage-thieves if there was a class of priests (perhaps of winds) who moved fast and fought at range, because the latter fits my preferred combat style better. The pirate mages, in that hypothetical game, wouldn't play like I like to, so unless I wanted to try something different, I wouldn't play them.

well the thing is that I don't exactly know what I like about rogues and warriors lol.
Like, I like both rogues and warriors even though their combat style is completely different. However, I get discontented when I see the bard being a subclass of rogue who just plays his guitar and buffs others and it looks like it has nothing to do with the rogue class. And I also am not very fond of some druid type class or class that just tames and commands animals. so I would have to conclude that it's probably physical aptitude that I like most since I'm fond of thieves that don't deal damage as well.
Is that correct or are there other things lol. I mean, tbh the easiest way for others to figure out what I like is probably to go with rogues and warriors lol.
What do you think?

thanks for your help btw.

[NecroRebel]

Being as I'm not you and am not an internet telepath, I have some difficulty determining what it is you like about rogues and warriors :smalltongue: There's way too many different aspects of play that can affect whether a person likes a class or not to figure out easily. For instance...

Think about how you tend to play. Do you tend to play melee fighters, or do you fight at range? Do you like for you as a player to be doing something special constantly, do you like to set up a combo and then let it play out, or are you fine with just using the basic attack option all the time? Do you like to see very big numbers when you hit, or do you prefer to see damage done often without caring much about how much is dealt? Is it acceptable to you to miss with your attacks? How much effort do you put into defending yourself? Do you try to avoid enemy attacks even if you could just tank them, do you put a lot of buff spells on yourself, do you use healing abilities? What about debuffing enemies, do you try to reduce their abilities? If you're not in a combat situation, do you like to be able to overcome obstacles, or are you fine with just going around them? How much travel time do you accept between objectives? Do you care if you're a competent magician if there's a non-magical way to do things? Do you care if you aren't a magician if magic is necessary for certain tasks? If the system allows it, would you rather talk your way past opponents, otherwise avoid them, or fight them? These are all aspects of play that can help choose a class in various systems.

[AquaBlade]

Being as I'm not you and am not an internet telepath, I have some difficulty determining what it is you like about rogues and warriors :smalltongue: There's way too many different aspects of play that can affect whether a person likes a class or not to figure out easily. For instance...

Think about how you tend to play. Do you tend to play melee fighters, or do you fight at range? Do you like for you as a player to be doing something special constantly, do you like to set up a combo and then let it play out, or are you fine with just using the basic attack option all the time? Do you like to see very big numbers when you hit, or do you prefer to see damage done often without caring much about how much is dealt? Is it acceptable to you to miss with your attacks? How much effort do you put into defending yourself? Do you try to avoid enemy attacks even if you could just tank them, do you put a lot of buff spells on yourself, do you use healing abilities? What about debuffing enemies, do you try to reduce their abilities? If you're not in a combat situation, do you like to be able to overcome obstacles, or are you fine with just going around them? How much travel time do you accept between objectives? Do you care if you're a competent magician if there's a non-magical way to do things? Do you care if you aren't a magician if magic is necessary for certain tasks? If the system allows it, would you rather talk your way past opponents, otherwise avoid them, or fight them? These are all aspects of play that can help choose a class in various systems.

lol would physical aptitude work?
I don't really care about ranged or melee attacks, I use them situationally. I can play either a tank or a stealth just the same and enjoy both as separate experiences. Would it be less complicated to just say rogues and warriors lol.
Even though I still don't get how a bard is a subclass of rogues sometimes.

In the same way, in class-based shooters like battlefield 3, I enjoy being a recon and assault equally and even being the support character just spraying with a lmg lol.

[Urpriest]

@AquaBlade: you're thinking of media (in this case mmorpgs) as controlled by stereotypical groupings, rather than the other way around. You're talking like these stereotypical groupings have rules associated with them, and like those rules are something people can find out. And you seem to be completely sincere about this.

Maybe you're just young, or maybe you haven't done a lot of thought on this topic. But I think you'll find that culture is riddled with exceptions, that a question like "do engineers and bards fall under rogues" is not a question with a straightforward answer, or even a very productive question to ask most of the time.

Because you didn't recognize the term Tropes, I'm guessing you haven't used this site (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) before. I recommend you take a look at it, not only because you could have a lot to learn from its general attitudes, but because it's the kind of thing that I think, with the sorts of questions you're asking, you probably will find fun.

[NecroRebel]

lol would physical aptitude work?Kinda vague, but I guess you'd prefer not to play the really squishy types. It sounds more like you mostly just don't really have a fixed playstyle preference and/or are versatile enough to enjoy anything.


Even though I still don't get how a bard is a subclass of rogues sometimes. Dungeons and Dragons is probably to blame. From what I understand, the earliest instance of the Bard class was a special class that could only be entered by characters that had several other classes, including thief, and continued developing sneaky skills. I know in Baldur's Gate 2 bards had the ability to pick pockets, so in 2e D&D they were somewhat thief-like, too, and in 3.x D&D they and rogues are the main skill classes in the core rule books.

Alternatively, it's due to bards being medieval-style entertainers sort of like circus players, so they're associated with such feats as juggling, knife throwing, balancing, tumbling, and sleight of hand. Sleight of hand is associated with con-artists, con-artists are criminals, and rogues are criminals. Therefore, con-artists are like rogues, bards are like con-artists, therefore bards are like rogues.

[AquaBlade]

Kinda vague, but I guess you'd prefer not to play the really squishy types. It sounds more like you mostly just don't really have a fixed playstyle preference and/or are versatile enough to enjoy anything.

Dungeons and Dragons is probably to blame. From what I understand, the earliest instance of the Bard class was a special class that could only be entered by characters that had several other classes, including thief, and continued developing sneaky skills. I know in Baldur's Gate 2 bards had the ability to pick pockets, so in 2e D&D they were somewhat thief-like, too, and in 3.x D&D they and rogues are the main skill classes in the core rule books.

Alternatively, it's due to bards being medieval-style entertainers sort of like circus players, so they're associated with such feats as juggling, knife throwing, balancing, tumbling, and sleight of hand. Sleight of hand is associated with con-artists, con-artists are criminals, and rogues are criminals. Therefore, con-artists are like rogues, bards are like con-artists, therefore bards are like rogues.

oh, that makes sense. I thought that the bard was the musician who traveled around playing songs .like in skyrim which I'm playing right now lol.
well I don't really like mages, but I enjoy stealth games where you can call the guy squishy. Example like metal gear solid, Thief series.

[AquaBlade]

so what is true about such stereotypical groupings?
btw, that site is pretty interesting. I've looked at it before, primarily at typical rpg class elements such as elemental rock-paper-scissors.

and being me with physical aptitude as such a vague description. Would rogue and warrior be a better fit? And I've always though of the traditional archetypes as rogues, warriors, mages, and clerics. Would ranger be an additional archetype as in that tvtrope site?

and talking about those hybrids such as stealth mages. How would you figure out whether it's actually a mage or a rogue since there's that fluff and crunch.
And the same thing with engineer classes. I see things like iron man which has the same problem lol.

thanks.

[NecroRebel]

I think that the stereotypical groupings we've been discussing don't have anything that's always true of any of them. That's been Urpriest and I's point; they're sort of all just, "I know them when I see them."

And because of that, all of those descriptors you've been giving are too vague to be useful.

The "traditional" fighter-thief-mage-priest group is only as old as OD&D, and primarily come from it, its assumptions, and its needs. It's just been so colossally influential in defining what a fantasy setting is that any game intended to exist in a fantasy setting practically needs to have them, even if they don't really logically make much sense. Gygax and crew inherited much from Lord of the Rings (arguably the first D&D books assumed Middle-Earth; they even had hobbits called by that name!), and rangers came from LotR. "Ranger" is an archetype, certainly, but isn't a specific role in the way the aforementioned four are, so it's more often done without.

You'd figure out what archetypes a class fits based on what it does. And your question seems to assume that something is for instance a mage or a rogue and that nothing can possibly be a mage and also a rogue simultaneously; this is flawed. You'd figure out what archetypes, plural, a class fits based on what it does. Engineers would be placed in one of the combat style archetypes based on how they fight in combat; Iron Man would be, roughly, a variant of Flying Brick (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlyingBrick) (an archetype that exists mostly only in superhero settings); he flies, is superhumanly strong and tough inside his armor, and has hand beams and inhuman senses. The fluff is sometimes important for defining an archetype, but just as often isn't. An example where it does: a character who uses nonmagical devices for various effects wouldn't be a mage, but they might be capable of exactly the same things a magic-user using magic could and nothing the magic-user couldn't do. Functionally, that devicer and magic-user would be identical, but the fluff would make the devicer a non-mage.

[AquaBlade]

I think that the stereotypical groupings we've been discussing don't have anything that's always true of any of them. That's been Urpriest and I's point; they're sort of all just, "I know them when I see them."

And because of that, all of those descriptors you've been giving are too vague to be useful.

The "traditional" fighter-thief-mage-priest group is only as old as OD&D, and primarily come from it, its assumptions, and its needs. It's just been so colossally influential in defining what a fantasy setting is that any game intended to exist in a fantasy setting practically needs to have them, even if they don't really logically make much sense. Gygax and crew inherited much from Lord of the Rings (arguably the first D&D books assumed Middle-Earth; they even had hobbits called by that name!), and rangers came from LotR. "Ranger" is an archetype, certainly, but isn't a specific role in the way the aforementioned four are, so it's more often done without.

You'd figure out what archetypes a class fits based on what it does. And your question seems to assume that something is for instance a mage or a rogue and that nothing can possibly be a mage and also a rogue simultaneously; this is flawed. You'd figure out what archetypes, plural, a class fits based on what it does. Engineers would be placed in one of the combat style archetypes based on how they fight in combat; Iron Man would be, roughly, a variant of Flying Brick (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlyingBrick) (an archetype that exists mostly only in superhero settings); he flies, is superhumanly strong and tough inside his armor, and has hand beams and inhuman senses. The fluff is sometimes important for defining an archetype, but just as often isn't. An example where it does: a character who uses nonmagical devices for various effects wouldn't be a mage, but they might be capable of exactly the same things a magic-user using magic could and nothing the magic-user couldn't do. Functionally, that devicer and magic-user would be identical, but the fluff would make the devicer a non-mage.

I see. so basically a consensus can be reached upon whether a class leans more to one side or the other right?
Because my conclusion of physical aptitude is too vague, say you're telling someone what you like, would it be more easier to understand to just say you like rogues and warriors? Even though I'm talking about everything including monks and engineers that fit rogue and warrior standards?

[NecroRebel]

Sometimes a class leans more to one archetype than another, but not always, and sometimes different builds of the same class can be different archetypes, and even the same build played differently can make a difference.

For instance, in Guild Wars 1, a Warrior might be heavily specialized in Axe Mastery and Strength and take a skill loadout that is heavy with attack skills, especially adrenaline-based skills that charge while attacking and drain themselves if the character doesn't attack for a while. That Warrior might be accurately called a berserker. Another Warrior might take a lot of Tactics and focus on buffing their party, making them a knight- or captain-type character. Both may still be fighter-types, but their other archetypes are different. Or, in Oblivion, for instance, you might have Stealth, Marksmanship, Blades, Acrobatics, Illusion, Destruction, and Alteration as your primary skills (the first 4 are mostly stealth-based, while the last 3 are magical skills). If you always snuck around and shot things from afar with your bow, using your magics only occasionally, you'd be a thief or assassin with some magic skill, but if you mostly used your magic and only hid when you had to you'd be more of a mage.

Telling people you like playing warriors and rogues is probably better than saying you like physical aptitude, but it still probably won't help them suggest the best class for you to play in a new game.

[AquaBlade]

Sometimes a class leans more to one archetype than another, but not always, and sometimes different builds of the same class can be different archetypes, and even the same build played differently can make a difference.

For instance, in Guild Wars 1, a Warrior might be heavily specialized in Axe Mastery and Strength and take a skill loadout that is heavy with attack skills, especially adrenaline-based skills that charge while attacking and drain themselves if the character doesn't attack for a while. That Warrior might be accurately called a berserker. Another Warrior might take a lot of Tactics and focus on buffing their party, making them a knight- or captain-type character. Both may still be fighter-types, but their other archetypes are different. Or, in Oblivion, for instance, you might have Stealth, Marksmanship, Blades, Acrobatics, Illusion, Destruction, and Alteration as your primary skills (the first 4 are mostly stealth-based, while the last 3 are magical skills). If you always snuck around and shot things from afar with your bow, using your magics only occasionally, you'd be a thief or assassin with some magic skill, but if you mostly used your magic and only hid when you had to you'd be more of a mage.

Telling people you like playing warriors and rogues is probably better than saying you like physical aptitude, but it still probably won't help them suggest the best class for you to play in a new game.

thanks. btw, is there really anything to be delved into regarding archetypes and typical game classes? Any research? Or any new things to be known?

[NecroRebel]

You could probably do a doctoral thesis on them, actually... But having not done a doctoral thesis on them, I'm not sure what would go into such a thing :smallbiggrin: Psychology, literature, philosophy, lots of fields could probably be related. TVTropes is a decent enough place to start reading, though; it's very informal, but often quite well-thought. you might be able to find stuff about these things on wikipedia, too, but I'm not sure what you'd search for. If you can find relevant articles on wikipedia, the works cited list can show you where to look for further reading, and scholarly works (such as would often be cited on wiki) usually have a list of works cited or related works themselves, which also have such a list, and so forth.

[AquaBlade]

You could probably do a doctoral thesis on them, actually... But having not done a doctoral thesis on them, I'm not sure what would go into such a thing :smallbiggrin: Psychology, literature, philosophy, lots of fields could probably be related. TVTropes is a decent enough place to start reading, though; it's very informal, but often quite well-thought. you might be able to find stuff about these things on wikipedia, too, but I'm not sure what you'd search for. If you can find relevant articles on wikipedia, the works cited list can show you where to look for further reading, and scholarly works (such as would often be cited on wiki) usually have a list of works cited or related works themselves, which also have such a list, and so forth.

lol really? What could possibly be written about rogues and warrior classes in mmorpgs and their relation with other genres?
so basically every dev has their own opinion about the class hybrids even though they remain vaguely the same right?

[NecroRebel]

A relationship between rogue classes and warrior classes in MMORPGs and other genres does or does not exist. You could research them, figure out whether you think it's more or less likely that such a relationship exists, and then defend that position. In some fields, that's what a thesis is; an issue is identified, a position on that issue is taken, and then that position is defended. Anyway, just looking through pages on wikipedia involving archetypes, I see that they probably total more than 10 pages, and wiki articles are consistently very, very brief summaries of the whole topic from a scholarly standpoint (which is why from that standpoint they're used for no more than simple reminders).

...You say "even though they remain vaguely the same right?" I've tried to make this point: they don't always remain even vaguely the same. Not even a little. I'm not sure how to make it any more clear. Different artists' conceptions of a particular concept can lead two implementations to be absolutely different, yet they're still identifiable because humans don't actually need any similarities between things to identify them as the same.

[AquaBlade]

A relationship between rogue classes and warrior classes in MMORPGs and other genres does or does not exist. You could research them, figure out whether you think it's more or less likely that such a relationship exists, and then defend that position. In some fields, that's what a thesis is; an issue is identified, a position on that issue is taken, and then that position is defended. Anyway, just looking through pages on wikipedia involving archetypes, I see that they probably total more than 10 pages, and wiki articles are consistently very, very brief summaries of the whole topic from a scholarly standpoint (which is why from that standpoint they're used for no more than simple reminders).

...You say "even though they remain vaguely the same right?" I've tried to make this point: they don't always remain even vaguely the same. Not even a little. I'm not sure how to make it any more clear. Different artists' conceptions of a particular concept can lead two implementations to be absolutely different, yet they're still identifiable because humans don't actually need any similarities between things to identify them as the same.

so besides brief summaries there's not really much to look at regarding archetypes and mmorpg classes?
Couldn't classes be related cross-genre though?
Like the warrior would relate with the heavy, assault, soldier, infantry classes. The rogue with the sniper, demoman, spy, etc...

[NecroRebel]

I think that relating archetypes within a genre is easier to do than relating them outside one, but that both are possible. It's just that archetypes themselves aren't defined in any hard-and-fast way. The challenge is finding the similarities between dissimilar things, which humans do instinctively quite well but perhaps not in a way we can put into words easily.

...Cognitive linguistics! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguistics) I was thinking about the example of the cup I mentioned that one of my professors had used earlier, and got to one of the more bizarre examples he had talked about. Apparently, there is at least one language where one word is used for women, fire, and dangerous things. The argument was that that people (which I don't know the identity of) found enough of a similarity between those three things that they found one word sufficient to describe all three. That, in turn, lead me to the book of the same name, which lead me to the author of that book's field, which is cognitive linguistics.

[AquaBlade]

I think that relating archetypes within a genre is easier to do than relating them outside one, but that both are possible. It's just that archetypes themselves aren't defined in any hard-and-fast way. The challenge is finding the similarities between dissimilar things, which humans do instinctively quite well but perhaps not in a way we can put into words easily.

...Cognitive linguistics! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguistics) I was thinking about the example of the cup I mentioned that one of my professors had used earlier, and got to one of the more bizarre examples he had talked about. Apparently, there is at least one language where one word is used for women, fire, and dangerous things. The argument was that that people (which I don't know the identity of) found enough of a similarity between those three things that they found one word sufficient to describe all three. That, in turn, lead me to the book of the same name, which lead me to the author of that book's field, which is cognitive linguistics.

lol well, I guess that those people had wives with fiery tempers >.>
That's why I like math and physics lol. There's only one answer to everything.
so basically, rangers are just woodsmen hunters and aren't necessarily limited to archery? I always thought this because of games like aion lol.

If it is possible, how would you relate the traditional classes with games like team fortress 2? btw, the basic classes are clerics, warriors, rogues, and mages right?

And also, where do these classes come from? I heard it all began from lord of the rings.

[AquaBlade]

Despite everyone saying that archetypes vary from game to game, I feel that they all generall yhave something in common, dont' they? That's why they're tropes which follow a certain standard. Like in that site where they have all those kinds of classes and sub-categories.
It seems possible to shoehorn everything into one of these archetypes lol.
Like for example, sonic the hedgehog can be considered a rogue since he depends on dodging and agility.

Btw, that tvtrope site is pretty cool. It addresses a lot of my previous questions.

[NecroRebel]

A TF2 Heavy, for instance, doesn't fit neatly into any of the fantasy RPG classes, though you could say that they do something similar. Like, taking lots of hits to down and forcing enemies to concentrate fire on the more durable guy instead of his allies is something that can be done in many combat scenarios.

Rangers aren't woodsman hunters, woodsman hunters are rangers. There's a difference between those two statements, but despite my saying that many times, you still seem to be trying to equate them. It's like I say, "dogs are animals, cats are animals, birds are animals, fish are animals, tapeworms are animals," and then you go and say, "animals are dogs." It doesn't work that way.

Also, I wrote this yesterday:
The "traditional" fighter-thief-mage-priest group is only as old as OD&D, and primarily come from it, its assumptions, and its needs. It's just been so colossally influential in defining what a fantasy setting is that any game intended to exist in a fantasy setting practically needs to have them, even if they don't really logically make much sense. Gygax and crew inherited much from Lord of the Rings (arguably the first D&D books assumed Middle-Earth; they even had hobbits called by that name!), and rangers came from LotR. "Ranger" is an archetype, certainly, but isn't a specific role in the way the aforementioned four are, so it's more often done without.

They're not really "basic," though, except in Dungeons and Dragons and other games where they're made to be basic. If you read the "The New World" articles under the Gaming tag on the left sidebar of this site, you'll find an example of a setting where mages and priests are explicitly not basic classes, to the extent where a character absolutely cannot start as them.

[AquaBlade]

A TF2 Heavy, for instance, doesn't fit neatly into any of the fantasy RPG classes, though you could say that they do something similar. Like, taking lots of hits to down and forcing enemies to concentrate fire on the more durable guy instead of his allies is something that can be done in many combat scenarios.

Rangers aren't woodsman hunters, woodsman hunters are rangers. There's a difference between those two statements, but despite my saying that many times, you still seem to be trying to equate them. It's like I say, "dogs are animals, cats are animals, birds are animals, fish are animals, tapeworms are animals," and then you go and say, "animals are dogs." It doesn't work that way.

Also, I wrote this yesterday:

They're not really "basic," though, except in Dungeons and Dragons and other games where they're made to be basic. If you read the "The New World" articles under the Gaming tag on the left sidebar of this site, you'll find an example of a setting where mages and priests are explicitly not basic classes, to the extent where a character absolutely cannot start as them.

Wait, so what are rangers?
this seems relevant btw : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModernDaySciFiRPGClassEquivalents

[Urpriest]

Wait, so what are rangers?


As NecroRebel has been trying to explain, there is no reason to expect that question to make sense.

Here's a classic example of a similar question: what is a game? Do you have an answer for that?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wait, so what are rangers?

Whatever the thing you're looking at has them as.

Real life rangers are policemen that work in parks.

Guild Wars 2 rangers are warriors with magic and pets.

The Texas Rangers are a baseball team.

Various videogame rangers are hunters that use hunting weapons.

Sonic is not a rogue. Sonic can be classified by a single trope, at best, as a Lightning Bruiser. But that's not a rogue. A rogue can be a Lightning Bruiser (although usually they aren't, they're usually gunslingers, assassins, and lightly armored fighters (which are different from Lightning Bruisers)), but a Lightning Bruiser isn't a rogue.

[AquaBlade]

Whatever the thing you're looking at has them as.

Real life rangers are policemen that work in parks.

Guild Wars 2 rangers are warriors with magic and pets.

The Texas Rangers are a baseball team.

Various videogame rangers are hunters that use hunting weapons.

Sonic is not a rogue. Sonic can be classified by a single trope, at best, as a Lightning Bruiser. But that's not a rogue. A rogue can be a Lightning Bruiser (although usually they aren't, they're usually gunslingers, assassins, and lightly armored fighters (which are different from Lightning Bruisers)), but a Lightning Bruiser isn't a rogue.

so not everything can be shoehorned into the rpg archetypes right?
And basically you guys are saying that archetypes aren't constant throughout games?
And that it's generally pointless to compare things from one genre to another such as classes? And that in order to find what I like, I should locate something that is constant throughout everything?
The information on the site is generally accurate right?
like this one? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses

[NecroRebel]

Here's a classic example of a similar question: what is a game? Do you have an answer for that?

That is an excellent example and I wish I had thought of it.


so not everything can be shoehorned into the rpg archetypes right? Right, particularly not outside RPG genres. Also note that "shoehorned" can imply "force into a container it doesn't really fit," so even if you could shoehorn everything into RPG archetypes... should you?

And basically you guys are saying that archetypes aren't constant throughout games?Right.

And that it's generally pointless to compare things from one genre to another such as classes?It's not the classes you should be comparing.

And that in order to find what I like, I should locate something that is constant throughout everything?Maybe. There might not be a constant throughout everything that you like to find, and even if you do find something that is constant through most of the things that you like, there might be other things that you like anyway, so it's a bad idea to limit yourself in that way. Playing your preferred role is often a good starting point in a new system to build familiarity with the system, but sometimes you gotta try something different.

The information on the site is generally accurate right?
like this one? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClassesWell, it's a wiki, with all that implies. People who don't really know what they're talking about can put stuff in, but on the other hand people who do know what they're talking about tend to correct stuff that's truly wrong. Take everything that you read there with a grain of salt.

Also note that that page doesn't say that any of the classes are anything, only that they tend to be something. Which is what I've been saying, too.

[Urpriest]

That is an excellent example and I wish I had thought of it.


Don't thank me, thank Wittgenstein (http://digitalkicks.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/wittgenstein-games-and-language/)!

And yeah, TVtropes is a great example of how fluid tropes are. The site is anthropological in nature, as the multiplicity of tropes should indicate (if Lightning Bruisers are Rogues, then why would they have two separate pages?)

[Roderick_BR]

(...)Because you didn't recognize the term Tropes, I'm guessing you haven't used this site (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) before. I recommend you take a look at it, (...)
And tell us what you think when you come back from it's maze next week.

An interesting take on the "engineer" is the one in the upcoming Torchlight 2. It's like a warrior/mage hybrid focused on defense. Like an arcane paladin, or a duskblade that uses only defensive buffs.

[AquaBlade]

That is an excellent example and I wish I had thought of it.

Right, particularly not outside RPG genres. Also note that "shoehorned" can imply "force into a container it doesn't really fit," so even if you could shoehorn everything into RPG archetypes... should you?
Right.
It's not the classes you should be comparing.
Maybe. There might not be a constant throughout everything that you like to find, and even if you do find something that is constant through most of the things that you like, there might be other things that you like anyway, so it's a bad idea to limit yourself in that way. Playing your preferred role is often a good starting point in a new system to build familiarity with the system, but sometimes you gotta try something different.
Well, it's a wiki, with all that implies. People who don't really know what they're talking about can put stuff in, but on the other hand people who do know what they're talking about tend to correct stuff that's truly wrong. Take everything that you read there with a grain of salt.

Also note that that page doesn't say that any of the classes are anything, only that they tend to be something. Which is what I've been saying, too.

thanks. Would you agree with this one? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModernDaySciFiRPGClassEquivalents
Aren't the roles the constant ones? Like tanks, dps, and healing? the holy trinity. If there's really no constant, then it'll be the same thing if you compare using classes or not lol.
I'm starting to understand a bit more. So for example, a rogue can be a lightning bruiser, but a lightning bruiser doesn't necessarily have to be a rogue right? Except, within the four traditional classes, I don't see where else lightning bruisers can be unless it can fit under agile warriors.
If we assume that the system of traditional archetypes covers all bases in terms of roles in video games, where else can a certain thing go? Tbh, I don't see what is in video game character attributes that's not included in the traditional archetypes.
Btw, as for my preferences. Yeah, I should try out classes that I don't usually like as well and see if I like them in a different game. It makes sense. Lol, I can't even word what exactly I like. I like pretty much everything about rogues and warriors, but when stuff like those singing type of bards come as a subclass of rogues then I start to get really confused.
And lastly, how come rangers aren't a separate archetype? Is it because even though it's a separate idea as a woodsman, it's attributes are already covered by other classes?

[Wardog]

Wait, so what are rangers?
this seems relevant btw : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModernDaySciFiRPGClassEquivalents

A ranger is - at root - someone who ranges; that is travels or wanders long distances.

That is why Roger's Rangers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger%27s_Rangers) were so called, and presumably also why for the Rangers of both Middle Earth and Babylon 5.

More generally, a ranger is (to quote Dictionary.com) "A keeper, guardian, or soldier who ranges over a region (generally of wilderness) to protect the area or enforce the law".

Pretty much all fantasy characters or RPG classes going by the name of "ranger" draw in some way from that concept.

How they are actually implemented though tends to vary massively (because none of those easily translate into core game mechanics); hence some "rangers" are archers; some are dual-wielding melee fighters; some command animal minions; some are skilled swordsmen and commanders with minor healing powers; and some are plate-clad berserkers with a soft spot for hamsters.

[AquaBlade]

I blame the guy who recommended the site to me lol. The tvtrope site is addicting, I just keep pressing links at the bottom of the page lol. That link that I posted in my previous post actually addresses how they relate to games of many genres even portal >.> who thought of that.

[NecroRebel]

thanks. Would you agree with this one? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModernDaySciFiRPGClassEquivalentsYes, but the traits that that site mentions aren't really definitive to the "classes" mentioned - in particular, in many games with a modern setting, nobody has more health or defense than others and "soldiers" are more likely to run in with assault rifles, being more DPS than Tank. It's comparable, but not really a precise match.


Aren't the roles the constant ones? Like tanks, dps, and healing? the holy trinity. If there's really no constant, then it'll be the same thing if you compare using classes or not lol.What of games that lack those things, though? I know of no such game, but I can easily imagine one where one hit is always a kill on anyone, and play involves making sure that your team hits the enemy before they hit you. Of those three roles you mention, only the "tank" really makes sense in such a context, and even it would be very nontraditional, requiring a blurred, uncertain hitbox or something similar that causes enemies to miss their shots rather than a simple ability to take hits. Other roles in such a game might be dazzlers, who blind enemies or make their shots go wide of their reticules, and detectors, who pin down the location of enemies so they can be shot more easily.


I'm starting to understand a bit more. So for example, a rogue can be a lightning bruiser, but a lightning bruiser doesn't necessarily have to be a rogue right? Except, within the four traditional classes, I don't see where else lightning bruisers can be unless it can fit under agile warriors. Mages could play that role, too. In 3.x D&D, there's a tactic called "scry-and-die" (or "scry-and-fry"), which involves a wizard using their magic to locate an enemy, teleporting directly to them, dropping kill spells, and teleporting out again before the enemy can really react. Even in normal battle, a spellcaster is likely to be the quickest, most durable, and most offensively powerful member of any group due to how strong magic is under that system. Hell, it's less efficient, but they could even punch their enemies to death with a layer of buffs.


If we assume that the system of traditional archetypes covers all bases in terms of roles in video games, where else can a certain thing go? Tbh, I don't see what is in video game character attributes that's not included in the traditional archetypes. I'm not surprised that you can't. I can't, really, either, though I can recognize that it's possible that someone more creative than I could. Tropes grow out of things that an artist does that are then imitated, and change in imitation like a game of telephone tag, until something separate from its roots is made. They very rarely appear from nothing. Still, just thinking of different twists to a genre can show what might be necessary and unnecessary in the twisted game, like the "competitive one-shot paradise" game I described above; agility and stealth would be king, but there would also be a place for counters to those things, and counters to those things' counters. Who knows, maybe if the game was popular enough, it would make a new genre. Before Half-Life 1, there wasn't a FPS "genre;" they were all just "Doom clones." Before Doom, there wasn't even that. Everything starts someplace.


And lastly, how come rangers aren't a separate archetype? Is it because even though it's a separate idea as a woodsman, it's attributes are already covered by other classes?

"Ranger" is a separate archetype. It's just that things that are called "rangers" can also accurately be called other things as well depending on the particular vision and implementation of the archetype. Very few, if any, things are only one thing. Everything can be called by many names, sometimes mutually exclusive; "pure steel" is truly purely steel, but it is also impure iron :smallcool: So, is steel pure or impure? Is an archer-ranger more or less a ranger than a twin-blades-ranger? Depends how you look at them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I can think of games that don't have the Holy Trinity. Exalted. World of Darkness. Probably Scion and all the other White Wolf games. Guild Wars 2 (Guardian does DPS + control + support. So does Warrior, with the possible exception of control in favor of AoE. All classes have their own healing ability. Only rarely does a power exist that heals allies, such as cross-profession combos with a Light field or certain abilities of the Water Aspected Elementalists).

[AquaBlade]

I can think of games that don't have the Holy Trinity. Exalted. World of Darkness. Probably Scion and all the other White Wolf games. Guild Wars 2 (Guardian does DPS + control + support. So does Warrior, with the possible exception of control in favor of AoE. All classes have their own healing ability. Only rarely does a power exist that heals allies, such as cross-profession combos with a Light field or certain abilities of the Water Aspected Elementalists).

yeah lol. Guild wars 2 is obviously doing a great job deviating from the norm of rpgs.
As for the holy trinity and roles thing, I was trying to say, how can you possibly convey the idea of what you like when everything appears to be non-constant and someone can always think that it means something else.
lol, do you agree that the pyroman and demo are the mages? I don't really know, but some attributes aren't necessarily mages. I mean, the role, of course as ranged aoe and nuker is the mage, but the fluff isnt' necessarily mage. Like, the soldier who uses the flamethrower are physically trained, not the scholarly mage of typical fantasy rpgs.

[AquaBlade]

I can see what you mean though. I've seen people say the mage is more of a sniper because he's a glass cannon and is screwed when people encounter him melee.
That's why I thought it was easier just to analyze the rogue and warrior classes and figure out which fits and which definitely doesn't fit since certain classes seem to share a few similarities.
What should I analyze when relating such classes cross genre?

[Kuma Kode]

You can define what you like by what you like, not by the classes that typically embody it. For instance, saying "I like mages" isn't useful at all because mages vary dramatically from one game to another. Even in the same game you could have different play styles accommodated by different classes. Everquest has Wizards, which are horrifying damage dealers but lack defenses, and Necromancers which focus on debuffing, lifestealing, and having their pet tank, as well as other classes. Those are very different styles just in those two classes.

Here's an example - me. Instead of saying "I like mages," I can say "I like versatility and support in casters. I like to play the tactician, where foresight, preparation, and planning is rewarded over big numbers. I like to be able to weaken the enemy with curses because I like a support role in a party. Healing others is also something I like in support, but if healing and debuffing don't exist in the same class that's fine. Regardless of role, I enjoy having an NPC ally to command, either to tank for me, assist in damage, or provide magical support, but this isn't mandatory; I simply like being a commander. Damage dealing ability is nice but not a necessity, I can be perfectly happy making it so everyone else does my damage for me through buffs or reducing the enemy's defenses."

From that, you can deduce which class I would prefer: The Necromancer. It can play support better than the wizard does, and does have some reverse-vampiric party healing. It has a rather competent pet so I can do support even when there's no other players with me. Because I described what I actually like to be able to do with a given archetype, you know much more about what would and wouldn't be good and can apply those ideas to other games with other classes. So if you got me to try to play Perfect World (another MMORPG) you could suggest a specific class, the Mystic (pets/heals/AoE debuffs, poor damage dealing), instead of "well, it has mages," which would force me to try out the Wizard (damage dealing, no support, no heals, no pet), the Psychic (damage dealing, no pet, some support, some heals), the Cleric (no pet, poor damage, great support, great heals), and the Venomancer (good damage, great pet, poor support, pet-only heals) before eventually randomly stumbling onto the one that fit me in the first place.

[AquaBlade]

You can define what you like by what you like, not by the classes that typically embody it. For instance, saying "I like mages" isn't useful at all because mages vary dramatically from one game to another. Even in the same game you could have different play styles accommodated by different classes. Everquest has Wizards, which are horrifying damage dealers but lack defenses, and Necromancers which focus on debuffing, lifestealing, and having their pet tank, as well as other classes. Those are very different styles just in those two classes.

Here's an example - me. Instead of saying "I like mages," I can say "I like versatility and support in casters. I like to play the tactician, where foresight, preparation, and planning is rewarded over big numbers. I like to be able to weaken the enemy with curses because I like a support role in a party. Healing others is also something I like in support, but if healing and debuffing don't exist in the same class that's fine. Regardless of role, I enjoy having an NPC ally to command, either to tank for me, assist in damage, or provide magical support, but this isn't mandatory; I simply like being a commander. Damage dealing ability is nice but not a necessity, I can be perfectly happy making it so everyone else does my damage for me through buffs or reducing the enemy's defenses."

From that, you can deduce which class I would prefer: The Necromancer. It can play support better than the wizard does, and does have some reverse-vampiric party healing. It has a rather competent pet so I can do support even when there's no other players with me. Because I described what I actually like to be able to do with a given archetype, you know much more about what would and wouldn't be good and can apply those ideas to other games with other classes. So if you got me to try to play Perfect World (another MMORPG) you could suggest a specific class, the Mystic (pets/heals/AoE debuffs, poor damage dealing), instead of "well, it has mages," which would force me to try out the Wizard (damage dealing, no support, no heals, no pet), the Psychic (damage dealing, no pet, some support, some heals), the Cleric (no pet, poor damage, great support, great heals), and the Venomancer (good damage, great pet, poor support, pet-only heals) before eventually randomly stumbling onto the one that fit me in the first place.

yeah I see where you're coming from.
Problem is that my likes are very general. I'm perfectly fine with games like darksiders and god of war and devil may cry where you hack and slash and play as a warrior. I even like playing as a pure tank because I like playing a guy skilled in warfare. I also like playing games like Thief and metal gear solid where you're using pure stealth. And I even enjoy not just combat, but also purely stealing stuff like in Thief. Moreover, I feel the thrill of lying and deceit evident in the rogue. And I'm also perfectly fine enjoying the guardian type classes and upholding justice. Lol, so I can't really find a way to characterize it.
however, I don't really enjoy the mage nor the cleric as much.
I don't really know why lol, even though I love archers and even ran a whole game in skyrim as a pure archer enjoying every moment of it.

[Kuma Kode]

Part of it could purely be aesthetics. You don't like the fluff associated with mages, you prefer characters who do what they do simply through skill. And it's not wrong to like a lot of different kinds of characters, too. I like support generally, but I can enjoy tanking or damage dealing. If there's no unifying traits in what they actually do, even in broad sweeps, it's probably more likely that the fluff is more important to you than what they actually do.

[AquaBlade]

Part of it could purely be aesthetics. You don't like the fluff associated with mages, you prefer characters who do what they do simply through skill. And it's not wrong to like a lot of different kinds of characters, too. I like support generally, but I can enjoy tanking or damage dealing. If there's no unifying traits in what they actually do, even in broad sweeps, it's probably more likely that the fluff is more important to you than what they actually do.

yeah that's probably true. What would the crunch be? Well, I don't particularly like support in like buffing or healing though. Like, I'd like paladin type classes, but it wouldn't be the healing part that I like about them, it would be the warrior aspect. I wouldn't mind that part because the warrior part is clearly evident. As for mages, besides dps, they also do a lot of things too as mentioned here:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses
there's some stuff that warriors and rogues just can't do such as necromancy and such.

[AquaBlade]

lol although the idea that aesthetics isn't that important, it seems like a big differentiating factor even though two guys may play the same role in war.
lol isn't that also the same thing as you? Aesthetics also play a part as you don't all the types of support.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...assEquivalents
lol, do you agree that the pyroman and demo are the mages? I don't really know, but some attributes aren't necessarily mages. I mean, the role, of course as ranged aoe and nuker is the mage, but the fluff isnt' necessarily mage. Like, the soldier who uses the flamethrower are physically trained, not the scholarly mage of typical fantasy rpgs.

[Kuma Kode]

Reposting repeatedly to bump a thread is frowned upon, FYI.

[AquaBlade]

lol my bad

[AquaBlade]

but is that page accurate regarding mages relation with modern shooter rpgs.

[AquaBlade]

any ideas?

[NecroRebel]

There is an "Edit" button. It lets you change the text of your posts so you can clarify or add thoughts without making a new post. Having multiple posts from the same person in a row is bad etiquette on forums. Edit your posts if nobody has responded and you have more to say rather than double or triple posting.

Anyway, that link doesn't seem to work. Also, as we've discussed, there are very rarely exact class equivalents across genres, though there can be similarities of roles. Mages tend to have area-effect attacks. Pyros and demomen have area-effect attacks. So, they're similar. That doesn't mean that those things are mages, just that they're similar in at least one fashion.

[AquaBlade]

There is an "Edit" button. It lets you change the text of your posts so you can clarify or add thoughts without making a new post. Having multiple posts from the same person in a row is bad etiquette on forums. Edit your posts if nobody has responded and you have more to say rather than double or triple posting.

Anyway, that link doesn't seem to work. Also, as we've discussed, there are very rarely exact class equivalents across genres, though there can be similarities of roles. Mages tend to have area-effect attacks. Pyros and demomen have area-effect attacks. So, they're similar. That doesn't mean that those things are mages, just that they're similar in at least one fashion.

lol sorry.
but don't mages generally do ranged aoe attacks? Do you count all those kinds of mages that are listed in that fantasy character class link?
btw, if you look at the fantasy cahracter class link on tvtropes, and in the description near the top, there are several links, and it's the one called modern sci-fi/rpg class equivalents.

[NecroRebel]

Generally? Yes. Always? No. Also, "these are equivalents" doesn't mean "these are exactly 100% the same." It just means that they can play the same tactical roles, or have something else similar to them. If they were exactly equal to one another, why would there be separate tropes for the different classes? Why would those various "equivalency" pages need to exist?

[AquaBlade]

Generally? Yes. Always? No. Also, "these are equivalents" doesn't mean "these are exactly 100% the same." It just means that they can play the same tactical roles, or have something else similar to them. If they were exactly equal to one another, why would there be separate tropes for the different classes? Why would those various "equivalency" pages need to exist?

so does that mean that classes like pyro and demo don't fit in rogues or warrior classes at all? They're not related? But they're related to mages?
do aesthetics also play a role? Besides just the crunch.

[NecroRebel]

No, they do fit the warrior and rogue classes, about as well as they fit the mage classes. These things aren't mutually exclusive. Things can be more than one thing.

Fluff matters, though it's much more mutable than crunch. It also doesn't entirely define things; in a setting with no explicit magic, a class that is fluffed as a medical chemist might play the role of a "priest," while the "mage" class might be an engineer who uses explosives. Archetypes are as much, or more, about tactical roles than fluff, but some archetypes are associated with a specific genre. The ones you've been asking about are strongly associated with genres with a medieval tech-level, especially medieval fantasy genres, to the extent where calling anything outside that particular genre family by those names is inaccurate.

[AquaBlade]

No, they do fit the warrior and rogue classes, about as well as they fit the mage classes. These things aren't mutually exclusive. Things can be more than one thing.

Fluff matters, though it's much more mutable than crunch. It also doesn't entirely define things; in a setting with no explicit magic, a class that is fluffed as a medical chemist might play the role of a "priest," while the "mage" class might be an engineer who uses explosives. Archetypes are as much, or more, about tactical roles than fluff, but some archetypes are associated with a specific genre. The ones you've been asking about are strongly associated with genres with a medieval tech-level, especially medieval fantasy genres, to the extent where calling anything outside that particular genre family by those names is inaccurate.

so if tactical roles matter more, how could demoman and pyro fit in warrrior adn rogues. Like you said, explosive engineers are mages. So then demoman and pyro should be mages right? In addition, mages are primarily aoe ranged damage dealers which is their tactical role. And because like you said crunch usually matters more than fluff, should demoman and pyro be more of a mage? Even though they're trained soldiers.

[NecroRebel]

Well, they are trained soldiers, aren't they? Trained soldiers are typically warriors or rangers. Further, pyros in particular are pretty quick, aren't they? I don't play TF2 myself. Anyway, speed tends to be a rogue-type trait. Besides, being like a warrior or a rogue does not in any way preclude something from being like a mage, or any other archetype. Again, these things are not at all mutually exclusive, and it's kind of a moot point anyway because it's not the right genre for mages to exist anyway. It's irrelevant; you can only say, "this is sort of kind of in some small way but not really similar to [fantasy archetype X]," which you can say about anything and have it be true.

A pair of riddles for you. I'll provide some answers to the first.
How is a raven like a writing-desk?

Because they are both nevar put with the wrong end in front.
Because there is a B in both and an N in neither.
A raven is nothing like a writing-desk.

How is a pyro like a cleric?

[AquaBlade]

Well, they are trained soldiers, aren't they? Trained soldiers are typically warriors or rangers. Further, pyros in particular are pretty quick, aren't they? I don't play TF2 myself. Anyway, speed tends to be a rogue-type trait. Besides, being like a warrior or a rogue does not in any way preclude something from being like a mage, or any other archetype. Again, these things are not at all mutually exclusive, and it's kind of a moot point anyway because it's not the right genre for mages to exist anyway. It's irrelevant; you can only say, "this is sort of kind of in some small way but not really similar to [fantasy archetype X]," which you can say about anything and have it be true.

A pair of riddles for you. I'll provide some answers to the first.
How is a raven like a writing-desk?

Because they are both nevar put with the wrong end in front.
Because there is a B in both and an N in neither.
A raven is nothing like a writing-desk.

How is a pyro like a cleric?

Lol yeah, but aren't those just the fluff parts. Isn't the crunch that matters? After all they both play the same tactical role and mages are primarily ranged aoe glass cannons. I mean, that's the primarily role of a mage. And since pyro and demoman fit that role, shouldn't they be more related? And also, I don't think pyro and demoman have more speed. Plus, the tvtrope site put it as a mage instead of as a warrior or a rogue.
as for the riddle lol...
Those kinds of comparisons are kinda pointless. It's like comparing apples to oranges. I think comparing classes cross-genre has relevaance though no? That's why they have a whole page on it in the tropes site.

thanks for the help.

[NecroRebel]

The crunch matters, but it's not all that matters. Fluff is important, too, it's just more mutable.

Mages can have many tactical roles. Sometimes, but not always, it's as a ranged multi-target damage dealer. Other times, they're debuffers or disablers, sometimes they're minion masters, yet other times they play the role of buffer or healer... So why are pyros and demomen mages just because they can do one of the things that mages can do?

Also, TVTropes is a wiki. It's community-edited, and specifically made to not be scholarly or formal. It plays fast and loose with the rules of definitions so they can fit a lot of things under one trope. Further, it's descriptive, not prescriptive; what is written there is the way things are. You seem to want things to be the way they are written there, which isn't the way it works.

My point with the riddles (Lewis Carroll, by the way) is that those things can be compared, but that doesn't mean that they're similar. I was going to put in some of the "actual" answers, but decided against it. Again, just because you can compare things doesn't mean you should.

Actually, why are you trying to compare them?

[AquaBlade]

The crunch matters, but it's not all that matters. Fluff is important, too, it's just more mutable.

Mages can have many tactical roles. Sometimes, but not always, it's as a ranged multi-target damage dealer. Other times, they're debuffers or disablers, sometimes they're minion masters, yet other times they play the role of buffer or healer... So why are pyros and demomen mages just because they can do one of the things that mages can do?

Also, TVTropes is a wiki. It's community-edited, and specifically made to not be scholarly or formal. It plays fast and loose with the rules of definitions so they can fit a lot of things under one trope. Further, it's descriptive, not prescriptive; what is written there is the way things are. You seem to want things to be the way they are written there, which isn't the way it works.

My point with the riddles (Lewis Carroll, by the way) is that those things can be compared, but that doesn't mean that they're similar. I was going to put in some of the "actual" answers, but decided against it. Again, just because you can compare things doesn't mean you should.

Actually, why are you trying to compare them?

so what are classes in team fortress that definitely do not fit into rogue and warrior classes? But why would the fluff matter as much as the crunch? Lol I see a whole thread on that topic on the forum too. I mean, the fluff is just the aesthetics, isn't the mechanics and how something works and what role it plays the more significant part?
In addition, inside the holy trinity, doesn't the mage play the part of the dps. With exception to games like guild wars 2 which purposefully try to ignore the holy trinity and rpgs like skyrim, I see mages as primarily glass cannons.
Lol, I'm trying to compare them because well, like you know I can't really word what I like, the only thing I can go boy which is accurate to a reasonable extent are warriors and rogues. So I just want to know which classes are accurate enough to such classes so that I don't have to try out other classes and waste my time.
and also, what about pyro and demoman aren't mage and are rogue and warrior-like? They're not particularly fast either.
thanks.

[NecroRebel]

so what are classes in team fortress that definitely do not fit into rogue and warrior classes? But why would the fluff matter as much as the crunch? Lol I see a whole thread on that topic on the forum too. I mean, the fluff is just the aesthetics, isn't the mechanics and how something works and what role it plays the more significant part?All of the TF2 definitely don't fit into those classes. Different genres, after all.

Fluff is important because the justification for why things work the way they do can help determine the way that they actually work. This is more important in tabletop games where the referee, whatever they're called for the particular system, can make ad hoc rulings about what happens. A while ago I gave the example of a 30 heat damage-dealing ray of light versus a 30 heat damage-dealing fireball. What happens when you throw those two things against a (non-magical) mirror? The fireball would probably just damage the mirror, but the light might not. Interactions with a reflective surface probably wouldn't be specifically called out in the rules text... but it makes sense to have the two sources behave differently. The fluff influences the crunch, and the crunch influences the fluff.


In addition, inside the holy trinity, doesn't the mage play the part of the dps. With exception to games like guild wars 2 which purposefully try to ignore the holy trinity and rpgs like skyrim, I see mages as primarily glass cannons. The "holy trinity" as you call it doesn't inform most game makers (which may be why it shows up so often; people don't pay it enough attention to try to subvert it). But this is irrelevant. Why does it matter what the mage usually does, if things that don't do those things are also mages, and other things that do those same things can be non-mages?


Lol, I'm trying to compare them because well, like you know I can't really word what I like, the only thing I can go boy which is accurate to a reasonable extent are warriors and rogues. So I just want to know which classes are accurate enough to such classes so that I don't have to try out other classes and waste my time.

Ah. So, I can answer you precisely then: the classes that are warriors and rogues are the ones that are called Warriors or Rogues. No other class is a warrior or a rogue. Guess you're out of luck if there is no such class in a particular game; you might as well just skip the game entirely so as not to waste your time :smalltongue:

More seriously, the only thing that you're going by is so vague as to be useless for that purpose, so you're not really helping your cause. Your time would be better served figuring out what about warriors and/or rogues you like than trying to analyze the classes themselves.


and also, what about pyro and demoman aren't mage and are rogue and warrior-like? They're not particularly fast either.
thanks.

All I know about TF2 I know from reading TVTropes, and I know that I don't know enough to analyze them from that. I can say that neither of them are magic-users, so therefore they aren't mages :smallwink:

[AquaBlade]

All of the TF2 definitely don't fit into those classes. Different genres, after all.

Fluff is important because the justification for why things work the way they do can help determine the way that they actually work. This is more important in tabletop games where the referee, whatever they're called for the particular system, can make ad hoc rulings about what happens. A while ago I gave the example of a 30 heat damage-dealing ray of light versus a 30 heat damage-dealing fireball. What happens when you throw those two things against a (non-magical) mirror? The fireball would probably just damage the mirror, but the light might not. Interactions with a reflective surface probably wouldn't be specifically called out in the rules text... but it makes sense to have the two sources behave differently. The fluff influences the crunch, and the crunch influences the fluff.

The "holy trinity" as you call it doesn't inform most game makers (which may be why it shows up so often; people don't pay it enough attention to try to subvert it). But this is irrelevant. Why does it matter what the mage usually does, if things that don't do those things are also mages, and other things that do those same things can be non-mages?



Ah. So, I can answer you precisely then: the classes that are warriors and rogues are the ones that are called Warriors or Rogues. No other class is a warrior or a rogue. Guess you're out of luck if there is no such class in a particular game; you might as well just skip the game entirely so as not to waste your time :smalltongue:

More seriously, the only thing that you're going by is so vague as to be useless for that purpose, so you're not really helping your cause. Your time would be better served figuring out what about warriors and/or rogues you like than trying to analyze the classes themselves.



All I know about TF2 I know from reading TVTropes, and I know that I don't know enough to analyze them from that. I can say that neither of them are magic-users, so therefore they aren't mages :smallwink:

but by the way tv tropes analyzed them, they go by the crunch, so wouldn't magic-users be more related to pyro and demoman?
Besides mage, I can't really think of any other class that consistently deals aoe ranged damage and is known as a glass cannon. While rogues do deal high damage and use light armor, I think mages are known more as glass cannons.
So would the engineer and the medic be the only classes that don't fit inside rogue and warrior classes? All the other ones definitely fit and the only ones in doubt are demoman and pyroman.
Lol that's my major problem. I don't think there is a way to word what I like. Because while I do like physical aptitude, I also enjoy many things that don't necessarily require physical aptitude and yet are also part of rogue archetype such as making money through deceit and stealing things.
How come you think that mages aren't demoman and pyroman though? I was also surprised to see a whole page on a topic I've been interested about on tvtropes too lol. But, it kind of makes sense because they both play the same role. Tvtropes also states that magic is replaced by explosives and bombs and rockets, and the cleric magic is replaced by defibrillators and medkits.

Btw, I am perfectly happy with assault classes and sniper/spy classes in fps lol. I feel that they perfectly correspond with the warrior classes in both the fluff and the crunch. That's why I'm only concerned with what the mage is corresponding to, because I kind of feel that it's mutually exclusive while it's not. And even then it seems hard to judge which one it leans more to.

thanks.

[AquaBlade]

lol I finally understand what you're saying. I was browsing around the tvtropes site just clicking on links. And from the fantasy character class page I clicked things like An Adventurer is You and Character Class System and Common Character Classes, all which were about classes. And they talked about the roles and such, and it occurred to me that the traditional archetypes aren't necessarily limited to a specific role. I've seen warriors as tanks and dps and mages can be basically anything if you see how it branches out in the fantasy character class page.
In addition, on the common character class page, it compares tf2 and it put pyro as a warrior because it's short ranged. So I can see how fluff and crunch are both important as a class system requires both. Like, the crunch just dictates the roles but often the traditional archetypes play multiple roles and when comparing, with other genres, certain mechanics change which means we can't just look at the same thing in both.
Just two things I'm confused about now:
1) Are rangers rogues? I see them as a subclass of it in many games, but on that site it says that rogues are fragile speedsters, and that rangers are glass cannons, but I often see rogues as glass cannons too.
2) How come most games depict the mage as only a glass cannon/nuke role class. As depicted on that page, a mage can be anything, an illusionist, a blue healing mage, a beastmaster, a druid.

[Wardog]

1) Are rangers rogues? I see them as a subclass of it in many games, but on that site it says that rogues are fragile speedsters, and that rangers are glass cannons, but I often see rogues as glass cannons too.

I think that depends entierly on what the game (or story) designers want them to be.

As I mentioned earlier, the real essence of a "ranger" is "traveller or wanderer with good wilderness-survival skills", which doesn't really say anything about combat roles.
Aragorn is a master swordsman (in the films he also uses a bow, but I don't remember him doing so in the original novels).
The traditional D&D ranger is essentially a fighter-rogue hybrid: a better fighter than most rogues but not as good as a fighter; stealthier and more skillful than a fighter but not as much as a rogue; and with a few additional abilities related to nature magic and animal helpers.
The WoW "Hunter" (the ranger equivilent) is nothing like either the WoW warrior or the WoW rogue (warrior is tank and/or melee dps, rogue is melee dps and stealth, and hunter is ranged dps with a pet).



2) How come most games depict the mage as only a glass cannon/nuke role class. As depicted on that page, a mage can be anything, an illusionist, a blue healing mage, a beastmaster, a druid.

I don't know if it's true that most games do, but the reason many do is probably:
a) Magic users' fluff fits the glass cannon role better than other classes, therefore if you want a glass cannon, odds are it will be the mage.
b) In terms of game design (programming, balance, etc) "magic user who throws fire and lightning" if probably easier to make (and get to work properly) than a more complex class like a summoner, or illusionist, or blocker/controller.

Those two points mainly apply if the game designers only put one sort of magic user into the game. If they have several, covering all the potential "mage" archetypes, then the more specialized types typically have more specialized names associated with them:

If you do nature magic, then you are a druid. If you summon or control skeletons, you are a necromancer. If you summon any other sort of critter you are a summoner or a conjourer. If you do illusions you are an illusionist. If you concentrate on healing nad buffing, you're probably a preist or cleric.

But there isn't really an established term for "blaster/nuker wizard". "Mage" is an extremely generic term, so it tends to either be used for generic spellcasters, or gets given to the blaster.

[AquaBlade]

I think that depends entierly on what the game (or story) designers want them to be.

As I mentioned earlier, the real essence of a "ranger" is "traveller or wanderer with good wilderness-survival skills", which doesn't really say anything about combat roles.
Aragorn is a master swordsman (in the films he also uses a bow, but I don't remember him doing so in the original novels).
The traditional D&D ranger is essentially a fighter-rogue hybrid: a better fighter than most rogues but not as good as a fighter; stealthier and more skillful than a fighter but not as much as a rogue; and with a few additional abilities related to nature magic and animal helpers.
The WoW "Hunter" (the ranger equivilent) is nothing like either the WoW warrior or the WoW rogue (warrior is tank and/or melee dps, rogue is melee dps and stealth, and hunter is ranged dps with a pet).



I don't know if it's true that most games do, but the reason many do is probably:
a) Magic users' fluff fits the glass cannon role better than other classes, therefore if you want a glass cannon, odds are it will be the mage.
b) In terms of game design (programming, balance, etc) "magic user who throws fire and lightning" if probably easier to make (and get to work properly) than a more complex class like a summoner, or illusionist, or blocker/controller.

Those two points mainly apply if the game designers only put one sort of magic user into the game. If they have several, covering all the potential "mage" archetypes, then the more specialized types typically have more specialized names associated with them:

If you do nature magic, then you are a druid. If you summon or control skeletons, you are a necromancer. If you summon any other sort of critter you are a summoner or a conjourer. If you do illusions you are an illusionist. If you concentrate on healing nad buffing, you're probably a preist or cleric.

But there isn't really an established term for "blaster/nuker wizard". "Mage" is an extremely generic term, so it tends to either be used for generic spellcasters, or gets given to the blaster.

are only mages glass cannons?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonCharacterClasses
It states that rangers are glass cannons too lol. I just don't get how rogues are called fragile speedsters when they're popularized as being able to do critical damage.

Btw, do you also agree that pyro and demoman from tf2 aren't limited to mage archetypes? And that more than one traditional archetype can be called a nuker/glass cannon/aoe ranged role not just mages?

so the ranger is basically a woodman right? So it can be anything a mage a warrior a rogue?

[RedWarlock]

Okay, here's one way to think about it:

Let's say your whole concept/trope, like a Ranger, is an oblong cardboard box, with different colors painted on each side. Red on top, blue on the left, green on the right, yellow, orange, purple, etc.

Each tabletop game/video game/other media sets the box up a different way, or flattens the box by cutting some edges. A tabletop RPG like D&D chooses to prop it up from THIS angle as a bookshelf, and we have a shape with visible areas of blue, orange, and purple visible. Meanwhile, a JRPG like Final Fantasy chooses to put it up on end, and put a planter on it, and we get a box with orange, green, and red visible. A film might cut it up and flatten it for a different purpose, and we have a blue/green/yellow mat on the floor.

Each of those colors represents a different detail of the whole Ranger concept. They can't encompass them all, because they're limited to only seeing a few sides at a time in a particular media. You can't say that 'all ranger-boxes are green' and have that apply to all cases. You also can't say that a different box, a pyro box, can be directly compared, because they might have entirely different colors, shapes, or other details. They're similar, but the pyro box isn't going to fit in a row with a dozen other ranger boxes, because they're just different. Similar, but with distinctions that set them apart.

[AquaBlade]

Okay, here's one way to think about it:

Let's say your whole concept/trope, like a Ranger, is an oblong cardboard box, with different colors painted on each side. Red on top, blue on the left, green on the right, yellow, orange, purple, etc.

Each tabletop game/video game/other media sets the box up a different way, or flattens the box by cutting some edges. A tabletop RPG like D&D chooses to prop it up from THIS angle as a bookshelf, and we have a shape with visible areas of blue, orange, and purple visible. Meanwhile, a JRPG like Final Fantasy chooses to put it up on end, and put a planter on it, and we get a box with orange, green, and red visible. A film might cut it up and flatten it for a different purpose, and we have a blue/green/yellow mat on the floor.

Each of those colors represents a different detail of the whole Ranger concept. They can't encompass them all, because they're limited to only seeing a few sides at a time in a particular media. You can't say that 'all ranger-boxes are green' and have that apply to all cases. You also can't say that a different box, a pyro box, can be directly compared, because they might have entirely different colors, shapes, or other details. They're similar, but the pyro box isn't going to fit in a row with a dozen other ranger boxes, because they're just different. Similar, but with distinctions that set them apart.

yeah I get what you're talking about. But is it possible to list all the possible aspects of the ranger out? Btw, in the most general sense is the ranger just a woodsman like in the description of the trope?
Can we list out the aspects, then list out the corresponding aspects of another class and see how many colors match?
Isn't that how dev's decide that a ranger will be a subclass of a rogue like in rift?

[RedWarlock]

yeah I get what you're talking about. But is it possible to list all the possible aspects of the ranger out? Btw, in the most general sense is the ranger just a woodsman like in the description of the trope?
Can we list out the aspects, then list out the corresponding aspects of another class and see how many colors match?
Isn't that how dev's decide that a ranger will be a subclass of a rogue like in rift?

You could try, but it would be a very long, and occasionally contradictory list. ("Rangers always attack with bows!" "No they don't, they always use 2 swords!" "You're both wrong, they use acrobatic martial arts and giant combining, transforming robots!")

The dictionary definition of a ranger is what you're looking for:


Ranger
noun
1. forest ranger.
2. one of a body of armed guards who patrol a region.
3. ( initial capital letter ) a U.S. soldier in World War II specially trained for making surprise raids and attacks in small groups. Compare commando ( def. 1 ) .
4. a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, especially in jungle terrain.
5. a person who ranges or roves.

Those are all accurate. All of your trope definitions will match one or more of those numbers (most likely #2). Anything beyond that is just something derived, or a copy of a copy which has lost details in translation. Tropes can drift, but the dictionary definition usually doesn't.

I think you need to slow down, and figure out why you need to reinvent TvTropes and the dictionary. You could do this comparison, sure, but why?

[AquaBlade]

I see, so I only see some classes as contradictory because I'm not used to other sides of the base class right? For example, I've always been confused with bards being a subclass of rogues
Or a paladin/monk who has more combat abilities being a subclass of clerics
Or a guy who just uses animals as its primary form of combat being a subclass of rangers.
All these confusions are just based out of being used to only seeing one side of the class right?

But regarding TvTropes, it is viable to be able to figure out whether one class from another genre would be a reasonable subclass of another right?
Like for example, you would never see am age being a subclass of a rogue unless it had some sort of innate stealth ability that wasn't magic?

[Kuma Kode]

But regarding TvTropes, it is viable to be able to figure out whether one class from another genre would be a reasonable subclass of another right? Nope. The issue here is that would require the classes to have been defined in the first place. They're really not. Classes are something that is more intuitively understood as part of the collective consciousness than it is something that can be quantified and turned into a list of traits. There is no trait that all would share, just patterns.

For instance, fruits. A fruit is a class. When you look at a fruit, you know it's a fruit. You have an idea of what a fruit is, even if you don't have a grand list of qualities. But when you start to quantify them, you find out a tomato would be a fruit, too. It still doesn't go in a fruit salad. You still don't think of it as a fruit.

You can quantify class archetypes all you want, but regardless of how many checkmarks an idea gets, it may never be considered a part of that archetype simply because it's lacking some intuitive quality we all get but no one can really put into words.

Even if that intuitive quality isn't in the way, you still have the issue of context and setting. There's more variables than just a list you can check off. For instance, your example. To function as a rogue, a magic using class could use invisibility and other spells to achieve the same effects. If there were a more blasty magic user, the illusion mage could certainly be the "rogue." In a low magic setting, anyone who uses magic may immediately fill the "mage" slot, but imagine, if you will, a high magic world where everyone's got magic. Suddenly having magic isn't a huge defining trait, and it's more about what you do with that magic.

Since you seem a bit obsessed with qualifying the "rogue" and "warrior" as nonmagical, would everyone in that setting be "mages?"

Avatar : The Last Airbender is a good example of this. Every one of the elements has benders that manipulate it, but despite each one essentially having magic, they all function very differently. Earthbenders are "warriors," able to clad themselves in stone armor and are presented as being fairly durable individuals. The firebenders are blasters, the mages of the group. They don't really have any utility powers; the only thing they ever seem to do is blow things up. Both are magic users, but both fulfill a different role because in that setting, magic is not a defining quality.

This is why attempting to quantify what it means to be of any particular class, beyond very broad strokes like "supportive" and "focused on damage" is doomed to fail. Your checklist will work for one setting and may or may not even accommodate all characters in that setting. Attempts to include more and more settings will cause the list to implode as it begins to blindly take in contradictory qualities without regard for context. Trying to make it account for context will create such a convoluted web that it would be completely and utterly useless for anything except novelty. There's no use in creating a useless system.

[AquaBlade]

Nope. The issue here is that would require the classes to have been defined in the first place. They're really not. Classes are something that is more intuitively understood as part of the collective consciousness than it is something that can be quantified and turned into a list of traits. There is no trait that all would share, just patterns.

For instance, fruits. A fruit is a class. When you look at a fruit, you know it's a fruit. You have an idea of what a fruit is, even if you don't have a grand list of qualities. But when you start to quantify them, you find out a tomato would be a fruit, too. It still doesn't go in a fruit salad. You still don't think of it as a fruit.

You can quantify class archetypes all you want, but regardless of how many checkmarks an idea gets, it may never be considered a part of that archetype simply because it's lacking some intuitive quality we all get but no one can really put into words.

Even if that intuitive quality isn't in the way, you still have the issue of context and setting. There's more variables than just a list you can check off. For instance, your example. To function as a rogue, a magic using class could use invisibility and other spells to achieve the same effects. If there were a more blasty magic user, the illusion mage could certainly be the "rogue." In a low magic setting, anyone who uses magic may immediately fill the "mage" slot, but imagine, if you will, a high magic world where everyone's got magic. Suddenly having magic isn't a huge defining trait, and it's more about what you do with that magic.

Since you seem a bit obsessed with qualifying the "rogue" and "warrior" as nonmagical, would everyone in that setting be "mages?"

Avatar : The Last Airbender is a good example of this. Every one of the elements has benders that manipulate it, but despite each one essentially having magic, they all function very differently. Earthbenders are "warriors," able to clad themselves in stone armor and are presented as being fairly durable individuals. The firebenders are blasters, the mages of the group. They don't really have any utility powers; the only thing they ever seem to do is blow things up. Both are magic users, but both fulfill a different role because in that setting, magic is not a defining quality.

This is why attempting to quantify what it means to be of any particular class, beyond very broad strokes like "supportive" and "focused on damage" is doomed to fail. Your checklist will work for one setting and may or may not even accommodate all characters in that setting. Attempts to include more and more settings will cause the list to implode as it begins to blindly take in contradictory qualities without regard for context. Trying to make it account for context will create such a convoluted web that it would be completely and utterly useless for anything except novelty. There's no use in creating a useless system.

I see avatar more of as a warrior than a mage. Each of those elements are associated with a specific type of martial art. For example, water with tai chi and fire with shao lin. What are you trying to say about that though lol? I see those different kinds of mages a lot like in skyrim. There's alteration that you can use to enhance defense like the earth guy and other things which serve each of their purposes. I honestly never found a mmorpg where a mage was a subclass of a rogue or a warrior. I see even spellswords as a subclass of mages even though they're supposed to be exactly 50/50.
How come there's a whole exclusive page on modern scifi equivalents on the site then? And on the common character class page, they associate it with other games as well? Because most rpgs are based off of D&D, I just think that the fundamental idea behind each archetype is essentially the same.
Dev's won't steer too far away from the base classes that are laid out because rpg players are used to such names. That's why they set down a trope for them. If the term wasn't constant, there wouldn't be a trope and a whole definition for them that would apply to most mmorpgs.

[Kuma Kode]

I see avatar more of as a warrior than a mage. Each of those elements are associated with a specific type of martial art. For example, water with tai chi and fire with shao lin. What are you trying to say about that though lol? I see those different kinds of mages a lot like in skyrim. They're more like warriors, and then they're different kinds of mages? This is exactly my point.


How come there's a whole exclusive page on modern scifi equivalents on the site then? And on the common character class page, they associate it with other games as well? Because most rpgs are based off of D&D, I just think that the fundamental idea behind each archetype is essentially the same. Like I said, "supportive" and "ranged damage" and "melee damage" and "high defense" are all viable ways to quantify classes, but the more specific you get, the more narrowly your list will apply.


Dev's won't steer too far away from the base classes that are laid out because rpg players are used to such names. That's why they set down a trope for them. If the term wasn't constant, there wouldn't be a trope and a whole definition for them that would apply to most mmorpgs. You don't "set down" tropes, they grow naturally. They emerge from the human habit of putting ideas in neat little boxes. We can't communicate about things we can't give a name to. Most MMORPGs do go with the typical roles, because they're easy to think about and they're a good division, but many also have classes that are hybrids and capable of doing several different things, or very unique things. Not all games necessarily have roles.

What point are you trying to get at, again, or what are you trying to achieve?

[AquaBlade]

They're more like warriors, and then they're different kinds of mages? This is exactly my point.

Like I said, "supportive" and "ranged damage" and "melee damage" and "high defense" are all viable ways to quantify classes, but the more specific you get, the more narrowly your list will apply.

You don't "set down" tropes, they grow naturally. They emerge from the human habit of putting ideas in neat little boxes. We can't communicate about things we can't give a name to. Most MMORPGs do go with the typical roles, because they're easy to think about and they're a good division, but many also have classes that are hybrids and capable of doing several different things, or very unique things. Not all games necessarily have roles.

What point are you trying to get at, again, or what are you trying to achieve?

as for the avatar thing, I mean they're essentially warriors but with magical abilities. It's like a sword with magical powers. More of like a spell sword but leaning more to the warrior. They're fundamentally warriors/fighters/monks but then learn to infuse it with various elements.

In that fantasy character class trope page, they describe the various archetypes beyond simply supportive or damage dealing, etc.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses

I'm trying to figure out what classes in other genres fit with warrior rogue lol
Like in team fortress 2, the link I posted above has another link called modern scifi relationship thing, where it correlates certain fantasy character classes with classes of class-based shooter or other genres. Since I'm aware that they can often fit in more than one class, I'm trying to figure out which class cannot be correlated with the rogue or warrior classes which is where fluff and crunch stuff comes into play lol.

thanks.

[Kuma Kode]

That page you keep linking to does the same thing that I've been telling you.

Like Barbarian: Focuses on damage more than defense. If they do have high defense, they usually have virtually none against magic. Often wears less armor and has some kind of rage power.

That's pretty general. Even then, these descriptions are filled with "often does this." and "sometimes is this" and "usually does this, but sometimes will do this instead."

What are you trying to do that we can help with? Trying to map classes from other games and genres to the warrior and rogue archetypes reminds me of a thread posted a long time ago that literally asked to list every class from every game. It was an exercise in futility.

If you're looking to play particular games and are wondering what classes to check out we can help with that, but if we're just making lists I don't think there's going to be much interest.

[AquaBlade]

That page you keep linking to does the same thing that I've been telling you.

Like Barbarian: Focuses on damage more than defense. If they do have high defense, they usually have virtually none against magic. Often wears less armor and has some kind of rage power.

That's pretty general. Even then, these descriptions are filled with "often does this." and "sometimes is this" and "usually does this, but sometimes will do this instead."

What are you trying to do that we can help with? Trying to map classes from other games and genres to the warrior and rogue archetypes reminds me of a thread posted a long time ago that literally asked to list every class from every game. It was an exercise in futility.

If you're looking to play particular games and are wondering what classes to check out we can help with that, but if we're just making lists I don't think there's going to be much interest.

lol sorry. Like, I'm just going with that sort of general descriptions then.
Basically, you know like class-based shooters like tf2? and like mass effect? I'm trying to figure out which classes correspond with which?
In short, if you looked at that fantasy/modern scifi relationship page that is located near the top on that link I posted, I'm trying to figure out how they did that and what are the underlying principles that they used to compare such classes.
It'd probably be easier if I just focused on rogue and warrior classes and attempted to figure out which classes can fit and which classes definitely do not fit right? I guess this is where the debate between fluff and crunch begins.
For example we have the pyro class. Its role is more of a aoe ranged which suits a mage more. However, it's also short range like a warrior. So would it fit as a warrior?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModernDaySciFiRPGClassEquivalents

as for rangers, could they ever be a beasmaster that just commands pets and such? I always thought of them as forest archers, more of like that ranger's apprentice book lol.

thanks.

[erikun]

In short, if you looked at that fantasy/modern scifi relationship page that is located near the top on that link I posted, I'm trying to figure out how they did that and what are the underlying principles that they used to compare such classes.
They took a look at the fantasy classes, sorted them out by archetypes, and then checked out the sci-fi classes fit into those archetypes. That, or they did the opposite: created sci-fi archetypes, and saw how the fantasy classes fit in.

For example, if I wanted to classify a roughly realistic medieval/fantasy setting into archetypes, I'd probably come up with these:

Infantry - cheap, weak, plentiful, highly mobile characters, digs the trenches and sets up traps
Tanks - highly defensive but low mobility
Calvary - high speed and high damage, but poor mobility outside of flat ground
Archers - long range, high damage, poor accuracy, works well in a group
Crossbowman - long range, high damage, slow reload
Priests - healers
Blast Mages - long range, wide area damage, slow to attack, weak in melee
Support Casters - grant unique properities to others

You could probably also put Tacticians, Merchants, and a few others in there depending on how you wanted to categorize things.

Now, you just compare these categories to TF2 and see how the classes fit together. Heck, you can compare them to D&D and see how they fit: you don't need to have a magic/sci-fi divide to see the differences! For one, D&D doesn't have any "Crossbowman" classes, but the Support Casters alone take up a significant amount of character classes.

[AquaBlade]

They took a look at the fantasy classes, sorted them out by archetypes, and then checked out the sci-fi classes fit into those archetypes. That, or they did the opposite: created sci-fi archetypes, and saw how the fantasy classes fit in.

For example, if I wanted to classify a roughly realistic medieval/fantasy setting into archetypes, I'd probably come up with these:

Infantry - cheap, weak, plentiful, highly mobile characters, digs the trenches and sets up traps
Tanks - highly defensive but low mobility
Calvary - high speed and high damage, but poor mobility outside of flat ground
Archers - long range, high damage, poor accuracy, works well in a group
Crossbowman - long range, high damage, slow reload
Priests - healers
Blast Mages - long range, wide area damage, slow to attack, weak in melee
Support Casters - grant unique properities to others

You could probably also put Tacticians, Merchants, and a few others in there depending on how you wanted to categorize things.

Now, you just compare these categories to TF2 and see how the classes fit together. Heck, you can compare them to D&D and see how they fit: you don't need to have a magic/sci-fi divide to see the differences! For one, D&D doesn't have any "Crossbowman" classes, but the Support Casters alone take up a significant amount of character classes.

lol thanks.
but I mean they use the warrior, rogue, mage, and cleric classes to compare with modern rpg shooter classes. Like I said earlier with the pyro, it often fits into more than one category. How do they decide where goes where. With your kinds of archetypes it's a lot easier, I mean with the 4 traditional archetypes which they used.
They said that sappers replaced mages with grenades and explosives.

[Wardog]

As a more general point, it seems to me that there has been some evolution of what the basic classes are expected to do.

In older games, and in the literature and mythology that inspired them, the majority of the fighting was done by the "fighter", hence the name.

The fighter was Conan, or Achilles, or Madmartigan. All very different characters, but all total badasses that could go up against a mob or henchmen, or an enemy champion, or a horrific monster - and win. Single-handedly, if need be.

There was (usually) no tank/dps dynamic: the fighter did both, and did them better than anyone else in the party.


The thief or rogue, on the other hand, was the sneaky, cunning guy who was there to pick pockets, climb through windows, disarm traps, or smooth-talk his way past guards. In a fight, he might be able to help out by backstabbing people, or hanging back a taking potshots with a bow (or he might just hide under a table and pick the other combatants' pockets). Either way, he would probably be there as a bonus to make things a bit easier for the fighter, no to do all the stabbing for him.

Bilbo was brought along to burgle, not to backstab Smaug while the dwarves distracted him.


In contrast, the more modern game design concept (particularly in MMOs) seems to be that all classes should contribute equally to combat. So the thief/rogue archetype has changed from "sneaky/stealy guy who might be able to backstab the enemy, if you build him that way" to "backstabber/melee dps who can get you a little more gold by unlocking random chests", while the warrior is often downgraded to "the guy who distracts the enemy so other people can kill it".

Which I think is a bit of a shame - both the the warrior/fighter, who no longer gets to play the classic heroic warrior role, and for the rogue, who has essentially become a fighter who kills things in a slightly different way rather than - for example - someone who could use skill, charm and guile to get to an objective, steal it, and get out again without shedding a drop of blood.

[AquaBlade]

As a more general point, it seems to me that there has been some evolution of what the basic classes are expected to do.

In older games, and in the literature and mythology that inspired them, the majority of the fighting was done by the "fighter", hence the name.

The fighter was Conan, or Achilles, or Madmartigan. All very different characters, but all total badasses that could go up against a mob or henchmen, or an enemy champion, or a horrific monster - and win. Single-handedly, if need be.

There was (usually) no tank/dps dynamic: the fighter did both, and did them better than anyone else in the party.


The thief or rogue, on the other hand, was the sneaky, cunning guy who was there to pick pockets, climb through windows, disarm traps, or smooth-talk his way past guards. In a fight, he might be able to help out by backstabbing people, or hanging back a taking potshots with a bow (or he might just hide under a table and pick the other combatants' pockets). Either way, he would probably be there as a bonus to make things a bit easier for the fighter, no to do all the stabbing for him.

Bilbo was brought along to burgle, not to backstab Smaug while the dwarves distracted him.


In contrast, the more modern game design concept (particularly in MMOs) seems to be that all classes should contribute equally to combat. So the thief/rogue archetype has changed from "sneaky/stealy guy who might be able to backstab the enemy, if you build him that way" to "backstabber/melee dps who can get you a little more gold by unlocking random chests", while the warrior is often downgraded to "the guy who distracts the enemy so other people can kill it".

Which I think is a bit of a shame - both the the warrior/fighter, who no longer gets to play the classic heroic warrior role, and for the rogue, who has essentially become a fighter who kills things in a slightly different way rather than - for example - someone who could use skill, charm and guile to get to an objective, steal it, and get out again without shedding a drop of blood.

yeah I understand that. I'm perfectly fine with rogues just being a utility role and I've seen plenty of warriors play dps roles as well. What was the ranger class back then?
And what do you think of such class's relation with classes of other genres such as tf2

[erikun]

lol thanks.
but I mean they use the warrior, rogue, mage, and cleric classes to compare with modern rpg shooter classes. Like I said earlier with the pyro, it often fits into more than one category. How do they decide where goes where. With your kinds of archetypes it's a lot easier, I mean with the 4 traditional archetypes which they used.
They said that sappers replaced mages with grenades and explosives.
[Edit] I don't think I explained that well, so let me try again.

The categories on that page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModernDaySciFiRPGClassEquivalents) are setup like this:
-Warrior: high defense
-Rogue: fast, stealthy
-Mage: large area attacks
-Priest: healing, revive

From there, they just stick the TF2 classes into whichever category they most resemble. Pyros have a large area of damage for their flamethrower, so they end up in the Mage category. Scouts are fast, so they are Rogues.

The specifics of the decision are arbitrary. They could have decided that Rogues deal lots of damage in a single hit and Mages grant allies bonuses. This would change what category each class ended up in, simply because there are some fast characters that don't deal a lot of damage, for example.

[AquaBlade]

[Edit] I don't think I explained that well, so let me try again.

The categories on that page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModernDaySciFiRPGClassEquivalents) are setup like this:
-Warrior: high defense
-Rogue: fast, stealthy
-Mage: large area attacks
-Priest: healing, revive

From there, they just stick the TF2 classes into whichever category they most resemble. Pyros have a large area of damage for their flamethrower, so they end up in the Mage category. Scouts are fast, so they are Rogues.

The specifics of the decision are arbitrary. They could have decided that Rogues deal lots of damage in a single hit and Mages grant allies bonuses. This would change what category each class ended up in, simply because there are some fast characters that don't deal a lot of damage, for example.

but is how they related them correct? Since they had to pigeonhole each class into one other class, could some classes possibly fit in other classes as well too? Lol and like here http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonCharacterClasses
they put pyro as a warrior >.>
Like NecroRebel stated before, what other stuff do we have to look at to categorize such classes

[erikun]

but is how they related them correct?
It is as correct as the arbitrary decision of whoever wrote it up.

That's just it - the whole thing is arbitrary. The categories are arbitrary, the definitions are arbitrary, even the choice of which class in which category is frequently arbitrary. The reason one person says Pyro is a mage and another says Pyro is a warrior is probably due to different definitions - one says warrios have high HP while another says warriors keep people our of specific areas.

The problem you keep running into is that you're asking for a universal definition of "Warrior" and trying to figure out what fits into it. But there is no universal definition. There isn't even a commonly agreed upon definition, as you've seen. Whoever makes the categories gets to make their own definitions, and whoever makes the list chooses what class goes into which category when they don't fit exactly (and they frequently don't).

This is why you see the Pyro in two or three different categories: because whoever makes the particular list can just decide for themselves what category they want to put them in. And this is why your question isn't making any sense / isn't giving you the answer you want: because the Pyro's specific category depends entirely on whatever the list-maker chooses to be important.


Pretty much the only way to get around that is to make up your own list, with your own specific definitions. Then we could help you to categorize the TF2 classes much better, because then we could make decisions based of if the Pyro's dealing-damage-over-an-area is more relevant than its keep-opponents-out abilities. Rather than if the Pyro is "more vaguely-Warrior-ish".

[AquaBlade]

It is as correct as the arbitrary decision of whoever wrote it up.

That's just it - the whole thing is arbitrary. The categories are arbitrary, the definitions are arbitrary, even the choice of which class in which category is frequently arbitrary. The reason one person says Pyro is a mage and another says Pyro is a warrior is probably due to different definitions - one says warrios have high HP while another says warriors keep people our of specific areas.

The problem you keep running into is that you're asking for a universal definition of "Warrior" and trying to figure out what fits into it. But there is no universal definition. There isn't even a commonly agreed upon definition, as you've seen. Whoever makes the categories gets to make their own definitions, and whoever makes the list chooses what class goes into which category when they don't fit exactly (and they frequently don't).

This is why you see the Pyro in two or three different categories: because whoever makes the particular list can just decide for themselves what category they want to put them in. And this is why your question isn't making any sense / isn't giving you the answer you want: because the Pyro's specific category depends entirely on whatever the list-maker chooses to be important.


Pretty much the only way to get around that is to make up your own list, with your own specific definitions. Then we could help you to categorize the TF2 classes much better, because then we could make decisions based of if the Pyro's dealing-damage-over-an-area is more relevant than its keep-opponents-out abilities. Rather than if the Pyro is "more vaguely-Warrior-ish".

but say i had the warrior and rogue classes right? I just wanna decide if a class can possibly fit in it and share any similarities with them at all. For example, we both can concur that the medic class would never fit right? What can we say about the pyro and demoman. What similarities do they share? Besidse just analyzing the role.
what specific definition do you mean btw lol.
I completely agree with tvtropes definition of each of those classes.
Each of those subclasses just makes the general archetype more specific and narrower.
Basically I like the warrior and rogue classes. But not just like a specific part of them like critical hit, just in general the entire class. So I wanna see if other classes are ilke that so I can try them out.
What do you think of hte ranger class btw.

[NecroRebel]

What erikun is saying is that you have to decide what you want the warrior and rogue to be in order to decide what does and does not fit those definitions.

Put it this way. The following statement is absolutely correct: "The Medic is warrior-like, because warriors are those who are best capable of making war, which includes the skill and knowledge to keep soldiers healthy, while the Heavy is not a warrior because they've got no ability to support allies." I'm using a definition of "warrior" here along the lines of "individual who is capable of waging war," with "war" involving concerns of logistics (making sure the men are capable of fighting at their best) and multiple large-scale battles across a military campaign rather than the small-squad combats that most games concern themselves with. Am I wrong to use such a definition?

It doesn't surprise me that you agree completely with the TVTropes definitions of the various fantasy/medieval character classes because they're fairly unobjectionable, but I think that you'd find another, completely different, selection of traits for each class equally unobjectionable, because each of those classes can be more than one thing.

[AquaBlade]

What erikun is saying is that you have to decide what you want the warrior and rogue to be in order to decide what does and does not fit those definitions.

Put it this way. The following statement is absolutely correct: "The Medic is warrior-like, because warriors are those who are best capable of making war, which includes the skill and knowledge to keep soldiers healthy, while the Heavy is not a warrior because they've got no ability to support allies." I'm using a definition of "warrior" here along the lines of "individual who is capable of waging war," with "war" involving concerns of logistics (making sure the men are capable of fighting at their best) and multiple large-scale battles across a military campaign rather than the small-squad combats that most games concern themselves with. Am I wrong to use such a definition?

It doesn't surprise me that you agree completely with the TVTropes definitions of the various fantasy/medieval character classes because they're fairly unobjectionable, but I think that you'd find another, completely different, selection of traits for each class equally unobjectionable, because each of those classes can be more than one thing.

Well to me, the warrior class is basically the guy who fights. Who typically has the most health and can withstand the most damage in comparison to others. However, they are often subclassed into a more defensive form such as guardians/paladins and more offensive-oriented such as berserker type classes.
As for rogues, I think of them as mostly unethical doing things that are against the norm of society which encompass a lot of thigns such as stealing. And even engage in unorthodox methods of fighting such as backstabbing and stealth.
However, what do i have to look at to determine what class in tf2 fits into warriors and rogues and what doesn't? It's clear from the page that they're looking at it from more of a role-like perspective, however, aren't there more variables to look at to determine whether or not a class such as pyro can ever be considered a warrior or a rogue? What confuses me is how another link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonCharacterClasses
states that pyro is a subclass of warriors due to short range which is more of a fluff thing which appears to me to be less important than the crunch.

However, it also states how a nuker can be a heavy weapon guy as well. Now, to me there's a big difference between a football player wielding a 100 pound heavy machine gun and a scholar-like mage shooting fireballs.

[NecroRebel]

However, what do i have to look at to determine what class in tf2 fits into warriors and rogues and what doesn't?

You've answered your own question:


Well to me, the warrior class is basically the guy who fights. Who typically has the most health and can withstand the most damage in comparison to others. However, they are often subclassed into a more defensive form such as guardians/paladins and more offensive-oriented such as berserker type classes.
As for rogues, I think of them as mostly unethical doing things that are against the norm of society which encompass a lot of thigns such as stealing. And even engage in unorthodox methods of fighting such as backstabbing and stealth.

A class in TF2, or any game, fits into the "warrior" class if they're "the guy who fights," especially if they've got the most health and can withstand the most damage in comparison to others. So, the Heavy would be the "warrior." A class that does "mostly unethical things that are against the norm of society" is a "rogue," especially if they use "unorthodox methods of fighting such as backstabbing and stealth." So, the "rogue" from TF2 would be the Spy.

Also, you've just proved my point: that page you linked describes the "typical rogue class" very differently from your idea of a rogue. In particular, it doesn't mention ethics or abnormal behavior such as thievery at all, nor does it mention backstabbing or other unorthodox tactics - really, "hit and run" is very much not an unorthodox tactic, having been in use for several thousand years and probably longer.

[erikun]

Let me try this from a different angle.

In fighting games, there are frequently some very well-defined roles. There is the Jack of All Stats (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackOfAllStats), the Mighty Glacier (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyGlacier), the Fragile Speedster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FragileSpeedster). These are very well-defined categories, and so when you want to compare characters in a fighting game (or any other game), it is very easy to see who fits into what category. Heavy is a Mighty Glacier, Scout is a Fragile Speedster, Spy is a Sneaky Guy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSneakyGuy), and so on.

The problem with D&D classes is that they are not defined so narrowly like that. For example you have the Warrior: Heavy Armor, All Weapons, Great Defense, High Accuracy Attacks, Many Attacks, Protecting Others, Blocking Off Paths. All of these together define what most people mean by "Warrior". However, when you are trying to put classes into categories, you need something much narrower for your Warrior label. You'll find many classes that don't fit all those variables.

And so you have some people using "Warrior: Great Defense" and some using "Warrior: Blocking Off Paths" and others using "Warrior: any 5 of the above". What you're seeing is one person using "Warrior: Blocking Off Paths" and saying that yes, the Pyro can burninate anyone in front of them with their flamethrower, and so they are great at blocking off paths like a Warrior. Other people are using "Warrior: Great Defense" and saying no, the Pyro does not have good defenses and so are not like a Warrior.


Well to me, the warrior class is basically the guy who fights. Who typically has the most health and can withstand the most damage in comparison to others. However, they are often subclassed into a more defensive form such as guardians/paladins and more offensive-oriented such as berserker type classes.
As for rogues, I think of them as mostly unethical doing things that are against the norm of society which encompass a lot of thigns such as stealing. And even engage in unorthodox methods of fighting such as backstabbing and stealth.
Well it sounds like your categories are Fighter = Defense, Rogue = Stealth, Healer = Healing, Mage = AoE. This would make the Pyro a mage rather than a fighter, because they're mainly about running around spamming flamethrower rather than getting in someone's face and beating them down (as I understand it).

Please note that a first-person shooter like TF2 doesn't exactly have the same fighting style as something like WoW; even the "Fighters" like Heavy still spend most of their time moving around and evading.

[AquaBlade]

You've answered your own question:



A class in TF2, or any game, fits into the "warrior" class if they're "the guy who fights," especially if they've got the most health and can withstand the most damage in comparison to others. So, the Heavy would be the "warrior." A class that does "mostly unethical things that are against the norm of society" is a "rogue," especially if they use "unorthodox methods of fighting such as backstabbing and stealth." So, the "rogue" from TF2 would be the Spy.

Also, you've just proved my point: that page you linked describes the "typical rogue class" very differently from your idea of a rogue. In particular, it doesn't mention ethics or abnormal behavior such as thievery at all, nor does it mention backstabbing or other unorthodox tactics - really, "hit and run" is very much not an unorthodox tactic, having been in use for several thousand years and probably longer.

well to me, hit and run is just one of the tactics that rogues use in their combat style. And when I describe those classes, I mean like the purest form. I'm okay with anything in between rogue and warrior style, those types of agile warriors/swordsmen and swashbucklers/pirates. So I think that sniper and scout also fit the rogue as well as does the soldier with the warrior.

I'm just confused with certain classes. For example, in maplestory, I see the class called cannoneer. Would that ever be able to fit into rogue or warrior classes? I'm perfectly aware that it can be a subclass of mages because it's a ranged aoe type of class so it fits the role.
In general, what should I look at besides the role? That appears to be exactly what the tvtropes site is solely looking at.

[erikun]

In general, what should I look at besides the role? That appears to be exactly what the tvtropes site is solely looking at.
TVTropes is primarily for entertainment, not education. While you might learn something new from looking at it, you shouldn't use it as a guide for anything.

And what should you look for? Exactly what you are already looking for. Look for tough/durable classes along with fast/sneaks classes, and ones that fall in between.

[AquaBlade]

Let me try this from a different angle.

In fighting games, there are frequently some very well-defined roles. There is the Jack of All Stats (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackOfAllStats), the Mighty Glacier (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyGlacier), the Fragile Speedster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FragileSpeedster). These are very well-defined categories, and so when you want to compare characters in a fighting game (or any other game), it is very easy to see who fits into what category. Heavy is a Mighty Glacier, Scout is a Fragile Speedster, Spy is a Sneaky Guy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSneakyGuy), and so on.

The problem with D&D classes is that they are not defined so narrowly like that. For example you have the Warrior: Heavy Armor, All Weapons, Great Defense, High Accuracy Attacks, Many Attacks, Protecting Others, Blocking Off Paths. All of these together define what most people mean by "Warrior". However, when you are trying to put classes into categories, you need something much narrower for your Warrior label. You'll find many classes that don't fit all those variables.

And so you have some people using "Warrior: Great Defense" and some using "Warrior: Blocking Off Paths" and others using "Warrior: any 5 of the above". What you're seeing is one person using "Warrior: Blocking Off Paths" and saying that yes, the Pyro can burninate anyone in front of them with their flamethrower, and so they are great at blocking off paths like a Warrior. Other people are using "Warrior: Great Defense" and saying no, the Pyro does not have good defenses and so are not like a Warrior.


Well it sounds like your categories are Fighter = Defense, Rogue = Stealth, Healer = Healing, Mage = AoE. This would make the Pyro a mage rather than a fighter, because they're mainly about running around spamming flamethrower rather than getting in someone's face and beating them down (as I understand it).

Please note that a first-person shooter like TF2 doesn't exactly have the same fighting style as something like WoW; even the "Fighters" like Heavy still spend most of their time moving around and evading.

yeah that makes perfect sense. thanks.
But imo, it isn't the blocking paths that defines the warrior or that high hp defines the warrior. It's just that those traits are common to the warrior. It's not a single trait that defines the warrior, but rather the collection of traits that define the warrior. Similarly that's how I think of the rogue. It isn't stealth that defines the rogue. A mage can easily cast a invisibility spell and become "stealthy". It's the collection of everything that defines the rogue. It's the fundamental idea that rogues use sneaky methods and are generally unorthodox that leads to different branches of combat such as stealth and agility.
So, looking at the pyro, I see it as a collection of attributes where some belong to the mage while some belong to the warrior. What I'm trying to figure out is whether it can be possibly deemed as a warrior or a rogue in any perspective.

[erikun]

If you need the full collection of traits (or even a number of them) then the Pyro probably doesn't fall into any of your categories. Some others, such as the Engineer, probably don't as well.

I could call the Pyro mage-like for spreading around damage, or fighter-like for being able to kill someone in a narrow hallway quickly, or rogue-like for working very well in ambushes. How much you'd like the class probably depends on if it is fighter-like or rogue-like enough for you. (Or I could just recommend playing the class and seeing if you like it :smallwink:)

[NecroRebel]

So, looking at the pyro, I see it as a collection of attributes where some belong to the mage while some belong to the warrior. What I'm trying to figure out is whether it can be possibly deemed as a warrior or a rogue in any perspective.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly the way things actually work.

The trouble I think we've been having is that you've been presenting yourself as looking for evidence that "pyro and warrior are exactly the same thing," which they aren't, as opposed to "pyro and warrior have important attributes in common," which they do.

[AquaBlade]

Lol, I don't mind having a full collection of traits that are similar. Of course that isn't possible lol, after all we're comparing with a whole different genre. Even the heavy class is a bit different from the warrior class in terms of choice of weaponry and if we look at the range where the typical warrior is short ranged. However, the "warrior feel" just seems to be very alike with the heavy class.

I would just like to be able to figure out whether a class like pyro can be considered a rogue or warrior. However, I want to make it such that such factors that make them similar enough to be reasonable to consider it related to warriors would not be that vague that even a class like a medic can be considered a warrior or a rogue lol.

@ NecroRebel :
yeh lol, sorry for the confusion. I just want to know if a certain class shares enough significant attributes that it can attain the "feel" of the archetype.

[AquaBlade]

and in addition, I can't really figure out what common attributes pyro and demoman have with rogues and warriors.
I was reading this series of articles http://mmohuts.com/editorials/mmo-cl...playing-a-mage
and it too like everyone else describes mages as nukers and fundamentally aoe damage dealers lol....
So I don't see what significant attributes pyro and demoman have with rogues and warriors especially in terms of crunch.

and one more thing,
How come I'm seeing things that are really weird to me lol? Am I the only one who views the classes as such:
The bard in the rogue class. Like in ragnarok online, even though I see they have nothing to do with lying, deceit, trickery, and all they do is play music which somehow damages others.
The healing warrior as a subclass of cleric. We already discussed this I guess lol.
And also the monk as a cleric. Where he hits people with maces and books and punches people in the face. And yet he's called an acolyte.
And finally, the beastmaster. I see the ranger a lot as a subclass of rogues like in dragon age, so I guess I'm just not used to the ranger class classified as just a woodsman, or related to nature.

Btw, I was reading the common character class and an adventurer is you on tvtropes, and they had a list of roles such as nukes, support, pets, etc..
So it occurred to me that I didn't really care what role the class is as long as it's a warrior or a rogue. Like if its a dedicated healer it's probably a cleric lol, but I mean like those guardian type classes where some primarily defend and buff allies and even heal others as well.
And as for nukes, do ranger's barrage arrows count since their aoe? So I guess I don't mind the crunch at all apparently >.> Except maybe if they're like a dedicated healer then that'd definitely just be a healer.

[huttj509]

Compare the bard to the charismatic "silver-tongued" rogue. They might seem a lot more similar in that respect (rogue can be more than stab in the back).

In addition, if you're around wandering street performers, might wanna watch your wallet, just sayin (and those on the up and up know of those who give them a bad name in that regard).

The monk/cleric thing seems like a conflation of the western "Benedictine" type monk (think Brother Cadfael), and the eastern "Shaolin" style monk.

If you have a class who is primarily focused on control of beast companion(s), why NOT call it a beastmaster, especially if to you, when naming the classes, "ranger" evokes the image of an archer.

Or maybe I'm missing what you're talking about. What are you seeing, what is it you expect to see, and why? I'm not sure what you mean by "subclass of" unless you're talking about a particular game that defines various roles as subclasses of others.

[Wardog]

yeah I understand that. I'm perfectly fine with rogues just being a utility role and I've seen plenty of warriors play dps roles as well. What was the ranger class back then?
And what do you think of such class's relation with classes of other genres such as tf2

In AD&D, the Ranger, Fighter and Paladin were all members of an officially-defined "warrior" superclass. They all had d10 hp per level, the best THAC0 progression, could use all armour and weapons, and could take (at least) two profficiency points in any weapon skill. (Fighters could take up to 5 profficiency points, Paladins got holy magic, and Rangers got stealth and nature magic).

But that was just AD&D. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were other games that treated "rangers" as a type of rogue. Because as has been said, "warrior" and "rogue" are not clearly defined across games, and rangers tend to fall between them anyway.



but say i had the warrior and rogue classes right? I just wanna decide if a class can possibly fit in it and share any similarities with them at all. For example, we both can concur that the medic class would never fit right? .

Except in Star Wars: The Old Republic, where the "Scoundrel" is a stealthy backstabbingshooting rogue, who can heal, and the "Commando" is an armour-wearing BFG-wielding ranged DPS class, who can heal.


***

As another more general point regarding classes in "medieval" vs "modern/futuristic" games:

In a "realistic" medieval setting, there is a limit to what can be done without magic. The "warrior" is probably going to be doing some combination of stabbing people with swords, shooting people with arrows, or blocking attacks with armour and shields. The "rogue" is probably be going to be doing some combination of picking locks and pockets, sneaking and scouting, finding and disarming traps, and fighting dirty (which, depending on the game will either be "so they arent totally useless when a fight breaks out" or "how enemies are killed while the warrior distracts them"). There are not really any other "jobs" that could justify an entierly new class (as opposed to a warrior/rogue varient with extra abilities).

If you want healing that's more effective than washing and bandaging a wound (so that the patient should be fighting fit in a few weeks time, assuming they don't get gangrene), or long-range multi-target dps, or crowd-control that's more effective than "throw a net or bolas at someone", then you need a magic-user, who (usually) will follow the "weak and fragile bookworm" stereotype.

This doesn't apply in modern/futuristic settings. In such a setting, long-range multi-target dps doesn't require extensive study of things man was not ment to wot of. It just requires a soldier with a rocket launcher.

If locks and safes etc are computer-controlled, then the lock-picking/safe-cracking job ceases to be a dexterity-based one (that would have synergy with all the other dexterity/agility based abilities of a "rogue"), and becomes the job of a "hacker", who would probably be a computer scientist or some such, who would have more in common (fluff-wise, at least) with the traditional "studious mage".

Rapid healing would no longer require a cleric with faith in divine assistance, but a doctor with sufficient technical ability to administer nano-tech healing gel. (Assuming administering nano-tech healing gel required enough specialist knowledge that anyone couldn't do it).

And unless this setting is like WH40k (where swords and armour are still useful), the "warrior" is probably going to end up more like the traditional rogue or ranger.


All of which means that the "traditional" rpg classes from "medieval fantasy" games don't easily map to those in a modern/sci-fi game. And classes in a game that uses "select target and roll to hit/damage" mechanics will not necessarily map well to those in a FPS or other "twitch" game.

"Is the pyro a mage/warrior/rogue" is not a question with one correct answer. If you are making a game, you can define those broad classes however you like, and fit the individual classes into them as you feel. How other game designers envisaged or partitioned their classes is something only they would know, and may well not even have considered. And TVTropes is just a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs writing their thoughts about patterns they see in games and stories as a hobby, not a diffinitive and academically researched guide to anything.

[AquaBlade]

In AD&D, the Ranger, Fighter and Paladin were all members of an officially-defined "warrior" superclass. They all had d10 hp per level, the best THAC0 progression, could use all armour and weapons, and could take (at least) two profficiency points in any weapon skill. (Fighters could take up to 5 profficiency points, Paladins got holy magic, and Rangers got stealth and nature magic).

But that was just AD&D. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were other games that treated "rangers" as a type of rogue. Because as has been said, "warrior" and "rogue" are not clearly defined across games, and rangers tend to fall between them anyway.


yeah, but why would a ranger use their pets as their primary form of damage (beastmaster) if they usually use archery?





Except in Star Wars: The Old Republic, where the "Scoundrel" is a stealthy backstabbingshooting rogue, who can heal, and the "Commando" is an armour-wearing BFG-wielding ranged DPS class, who can heal.


yeah I'm perfectly fine with classes like that. They're just like classes like paladins that can heal at the side too. I just want them to be significantly similar to warriors/rogues. Like even though paladins can healer, they're mostly warriors that can heal. Not healers that can hit with a sword occasionally.



***

As another more general point regarding classes in "medieval" vs "modern/futuristic" games:

In a "realistic" medieval setting, there is a limit to what can be done without magic. The "warrior" is probably going to be doing some combination of stabbing people with swords, shooting people with arrows, or blocking attacks with armour and shields. The "rogue" is probably be going to be doing some combination of picking locks and pockets, sneaking and scouting, finding and disarming traps, and fighting dirty (which, depending on the game will either be "so they arent totally useless when a fight breaks out" or "how enemies are killed while the warrior distracts them"). There are not really any other "jobs" that could justify an entierly new class (as opposed to a warrior/rogue varient with extra abilities).

If you want healing that's more effective than washing and bandaging a wound (so that the patient should be fighting fit in a few weeks time, assuming they don't get gangrene), or long-range multi-target dps, or crowd-control that's more effective than "throw a net or bolas at someone", then you need a magic-user, who (usually) will follow the "weak and fragile bookworm" stereotype.


lol that's why rpgs aren't real life. as with ranged aoe attacks they'll probably have a army of archers to shoot on the enemy.




This doesn't apply in modern/futuristic settings. In such a setting, long-range multi-target dps doesn't require extensive study of things man was not ment to wot of. It just requires a soldier with a rocket launcher.

If locks and safes etc are computer-controlled, then the lock-picking/safe-cracking job ceases to be a dexterity-based one (that would have synergy with all the other dexterity/agility based abilities of a "rogue"), and becomes the job of a "hacker", who would probably be a computer scientist or some such, who would have more in common (fluff-wise, at least) with the traditional "studious mage".

Rapid healing would no longer require a cleric with faith in divine assistance, but a doctor with sufficient technical ability to administer nano-tech healing gel. (Assuming administering nano-tech healing gel required enough specialist knowledge that anyone couldn't do it).

And unless this setting is like WH40k (where swords and armour are still useful), the "warrior" is probably going to end up more like the traditional rogue or ranger.


All of which means that the "traditional" rpg classes from "medieval fantasy" games don't easily map to those in a modern/sci-fi game. And classes in a game that uses "select target and roll to hit/damage" mechanics will not necessarily map well to those in a FPS or other "twitch" game.

"Is the pyro a mage/warrior/rogue" is not a question with one correct answer. If you are making a game, you can define those broad classes however you like, and fit the individual classes into them as you feel. How other game designers envisaged or partitioned their classes is something only they would know, and may well not even have considered. And TVTropes is just a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs writing their thoughts about patterns they see in games and stories as a hobby, not a diffinitive and academically researched guide to anything.

that's what I mean. I'm perfectly aware that changes in settings would lead to changes in the class archetypes and such. So I was trying to weigh whether the fluff such as studious bookworm and computer scientist would actually matter in comparison to the crunch which defines the roles.
btw I was reading this article : http://mmohuts.com/editorials/mmo-classes-playing-a-rogue
It states how rogues can be hackers and even stealthy mages.
And also, I'm not trying to shoehorn the pyro as a warrior rogue or mage or cleric. I'm just trying to figure out whether it shares enough significant similarities with the warrior and rogue classes to be thought of as a subclass of such.

[toapat]

To Explain Mesmer in Guildwars 2:

The Mesmer is an illusionist who also happens to have a bit of Conjuration skill. Now, mechanically, i havent looked into the class as much as GW2's Paladin in all but name Guardians, but what i know is they got all the powers of the false god Lyssa.

Either way, mesmer is and never was a class that should exist, as even in WoW, the primary controller class of Warlock, still got a crapton of direct damage, while Illusion magic other then Mirror Image doesnt work in anything with Live action, because the very mechanics of Illusion rely on dynamic and perceptual changes to your environment.

[AquaBlade]

To Explain Mesmer in Guildwars 2:

The Mesmer is an illusionist who also happens to have a bit of Conjuration skill. Now, mechanically, i havent looked into the class as much as GW2's Paladin in all but name Guardians, but what i know is they got all the powers of the false god Lyssa.

Either way, mesmer is and never was a class that should exist, as even in WoW, the primary controller class of Warlock, still got a crapton of direct damage, while Illusion magic other then Mirror Image doesnt work in anything with Live action, because the very mechanics of Illusion rely on dynamic and perceptual changes to your environment.

so is the crunch or fluff more important? Like, a stealthy mage even though their role/crunch is the same thing as an assassin, they're clearly not a rogue. But that's only the fluff. What exactly determines what is and what's not?

And my only problem right now, is what significant similarities does pyro have with rogues/warriors? Their role is clearly more mage, but their fluff says otherwise. Is the fluff even important? Like the hacker can definitely be a rogue even though they're not physically trained. What determines if one thing has enough similarities to be considered a subclass? I'm not saying I'm trying to figure out where pyro belongs, I'm just trying to figure out if it shares enough significant similarities to be considered as such. So I'm not denying that it could be part of another class as well lol.

thanks.

[Kuma Kode]

Like what we've been saying, it's arbitrary. It shares enough similarities if you're defining warrior and rogue broadly enough that it fits.

Heres an example: "Every class in Battlefield 3 is a combat-trained soldier, so they're all subclasses of warrior." That isn't wrong; every class is just a different type of soldier, they can all attack at range and all of them have some pretty decent damage dealing capability, if not with sniper rifles than with claymores or turrets. If that's what I choose to focus on, then yeah; they all fall into the warrior class. Even the medic, because the medic is a trained soldier. So medic is a subclass of warrior.

It's arbitrary. In that case, the fluff by itself led us into a blind corner; every class is a warrior, which is as useful as saying every class is composed of humans.

Another example of fluff vs. crunch is Borderlands. The gunner, Roland, is a warrior by fluff. However, with the right stat builds, you can heal everyone close to your turret (Note: a summoned minion) and heal allies by killing enemies for them, shooting them or blowing them up with your grenades or terrain hazards, because fluff be damned, this is a support class.

[tyckspoon]

Personally, if you're going to start comparing 'classes' across genres and styles, you have to start by discarding fluff almost entirely- if you don't, you just get distracted and bogged down by all the situations where some aspect of the setting applies a paint-job of 'Warrior' or 'Mage' or whatever to everybody (as mentioned already, in class-based shooters pretty much everybody comes from some kind of Warrior-associated background. Or settings where all the cool powers come from varying expressions of personal magic, and hence everybody looks kind of Mage-like regardless of what they do.)

So, strictly speaking about the mechanics:
Pyros:
-Have very short effective range
-Can deliver very high damage, but require special setup conditions (Backburner, Axestinguisher crits)
- Are moderately tough, but can't absorb enough punishment to survive being a focus target
- Have a unique/'tricky' kind of ability that lets them fight heavier/more powerful enemies once they get close and if it's used well (Airblast)
- Because of all that, they prefer to operate from ambush or with allies who can cover them while they approach.

Those are all Rogue traits. Pyro is a Rogue- specifically, he's a pretty good example of the 'combat' Rogue subtype, where the Spy is a clear-cut example of the stealthy/assassination variety instead, which has lesser direct-combat ability and survivability in trade for a better capacity to remove unaware targets.

(Pyro is not a Warrior- key traits of a Warrior that Pyro lacks are durability and capability to engage in head-on fights. Pyro is not a Mage- key traits of a Mage that Pyro lacks are ranged power and squishiness. Mages do not go running into enemies the way Pyro's kit forces him to. For comparison, Sniper is a pretty clean Mage, IMO, and Heavy is probably TF2's clearest Warrior-type.)

[toapat]

so is the crunch or fluff more important? Like, a stealthy mage even though their role/crunch is the same thing as an assassin, they're clearly not a rogue. But that's only the fluff. What exactly determines what is and what's not?

And my only problem right now, is what significant similarities does pyro have with rogues/warriors? Their role is clearly more mage, but their fluff says otherwise. Is the fluff even important? Like the hacker can definitely be a rogue even though they're not physically trained. What determines if one thing has enough similarities to be considered a subclass? I'm not saying I'm trying to figure out where pyro belongs, I'm just trying to figure out if it shares enough significant similarities to be considered as such. So I'm not denying that it could be part of another class as well lol.

thanks.

In a game, typically the Crunch will dictate the Fluff, as well as the Fluff dictating the Crunch. A Paladin is going to have some heals, a called attack, and wear full plate. A Ranger will have a pet and be good with bows. Mechanically, these can be taken in pretty interesting directions, such as how Hunter is in WoW.

Mesmer, is a case where The Fluff never dictated the Crunch, because the class is a class designed for PvP combat. They are hardwired to ruin a player's day, and it resulted in a massively boring and overpowered class. In GW2, with the addition of shadow steps, they are even more PvP first.

A pyro is similar to a Rogue or Warrior because it does not rely on the same tactics or ideas as a DnD Wizard, it is a class built for offense.

[AquaBlade]

Personally, if you're going to start comparing 'classes' across genres and styles, you have to start by discarding fluff almost entirely- if you don't, you just get distracted and bogged down by all the situations where some aspect of the setting applies a paint-job of 'Warrior' or 'Mage' or whatever to everybody (as mentioned already, in class-based shooters pretty much everybody comes from some kind of Warrior-associated background. Or settings where all the cool powers come from varying expressions of personal magic, and hence everybody looks kind of Mage-like regardless of what they do.)

So, strictly speaking about the mechanics:
Pyros:
-Have very short effective range
-Can deliver very high damage, but require special setup conditions (Backburner, Axestinguisher crits)
- Are moderately tough, but can't absorb enough punishment to survive being a focus target
- Have a unique/'tricky' kind of ability that lets them fight heavier/more powerful enemies once they get close and if it's used well (Airblast)
- Because of all that, they prefer to operate from ambush or with allies who can cover them while they approach.

Those are all Rogue traits. Pyro is a Rogue- specifically, he's a pretty good example of the 'combat' Rogue subtype, where the Spy is a clear-cut example of the stealthy/assassination variety instead, which has lesser direct-combat ability and survivability in trade for a better capacity to remove unaware targets.

(Pyro is not a Warrior- key traits of a Warrior that Pyro lacks are durability and capability to engage in head-on fights. Pyro is not a Mage- key traits of a Mage that Pyro lacks are ranged power and squishiness. Mages do not go running into enemies the way Pyro's kit forces him to. For comparison, Sniper is a pretty clean Mage, IMO, and Heavy is probably TF2's clearest Warrior-type.)

thanks.
Yeah, I get that every class is a warrior in a shooter setting. However, I'm talking about their primarily role in combat. In shooters, the medic's primary goal is to heal, they can fight, but that's not their primary job.
And also, I know that many classes may share many similarities with other classes I just want to know what fits in rogue/warrior and what definitely does not fit. As for sniper, wouldn't that fit as a rogue as well? Assuming we're talking about ranged rogues as well. I tend to fit rangers inside rogues as do many rpgs, that's why I get confused when all a ranger does is command pets to fight for them.
What would the demoman be?
So like tvtropes said, if there was some guy that just went around throwing bombs he'd be a mage? And would never fit as a rogue/warrior class? Not talking about how every guy is a soldier btw.

[toapat]

So like tvtropes said, if there was some guy that just went around throwing bombs he'd be a mage? And would never fit as a rogue/warrior class? Not talking about how every guy is a soldier btw.

If he throws arround bombs, he falls under 3 Categories: Alchemist: He who Throws bombs because they are a weapon he can make
Nuker: He who throws bombs he Conjures
Engineer: He who specializes in blowing things up.


Im just going to counter as many questions at once in one go:

Fighters:
Warrior: Guy who specializes in non-magical use of weapons
Tank: Guy who can take alot of damage at once
Juggernaught: Huge damage and survivability
Paladin: Fight in the name of good.
Arcane Warrior: Spellslinging in Plate
Huntsman: Adaptable combatant with pet

Rogue:
Infiltraitor: Sneakskies, Theft
Assassin/Sniper: Make one attack, make it count
Alchemist: Explosives and poisons
Ranger: Pet, Combat style, sneaky
Scout: Sneaky archer.

Swashbuckler:
Engineer: Explosives, guns.
Dervish: High mobility combatant
Whirling Dervish/Dodge Tank: Heavy combatant relying on reflexes for survival.
Monk: Mystic warrior focusing on fluid combat.

Caster:
Warlock/Necromancer: debuffs and minions
Evoker: High damage, high volume AoE.
Blaster: High Damage, Single target
Wizard/Elementalist: General spellcaster
Illusionist: Debuffs and distraction

Support:
Priest: Lightwight and high healer
Cleric/Druid: Superheavyweight, high healer
Medic: healer, minored in combat
Binder: Party Buffer, Cover healer, turret builder
Martial: Party Buffer and Fire support
Bard: Party Buffer and spells

[AquaBlade]

If he throws arround bombs, he falls under 3 Categories: Alchemist: He who Throws bombs because they are a weapon he can make
Nuker: He who throws bombs he Conjures
Engineer: He who specializes in blowing things up.


Im just going to counter as many questions at once in one go:

Fighters:
Warrior: Guy who specializes in non-magical use of weapons
Tank: Guy who can take alot of damage at once
Juggernaught: Huge damage and survivability
Paladin: Fight in the name of good.
Arcane Warrior: Spellslinging in Plate
Huntsman: Adaptable combatant with pet

Rogue:
Infiltraitor: Sneakskies, Theft
Assassin/Sniper: Make one attack, make it count
Alchemist: Explosives and poisons
Ranger: Pet, Combat style, sneaky
Scout: Sneaky archer.

Swashbuckler:
Engineer: Explosives, guns.
Dervish: High mobility combatant
Whirling Dervish/Dodge Tank: Heavy combatant relying on reflexes for survival.
Monk: Mystic warrior focusing on fluid combat.

Caster:
Warlock/Necromancer: debuffs and minions
Evoker: High damage, high volume AoE.
Blaster: High Damage, Single target
Wizard/Elementalist: General spellcaster
Illusionist: Debuffs and distraction

Support:
Priest: Lightwight and high healer
Cleric/Druid: Superheavyweight, high healer
Medic: healer, minored in combat
Binder: Party Buffer, Cover healer, turret builder
Martial: Party Buffer and Fire support
Bard: Party Buffer and spells

thanks. but don't these classes have many sides to them? And often classes from different genres can fall in more than one category right? So I'd use these to see if they belong in any one?
As for demoman, so it would never be a warrior or a rogue?
thanks.

[tyckspoon]

As for demoman, so it would never be a warrior or a rogue?
thanks.

Demoman's a bit hard to pin down, because it's a very versatile class. He can certainly *play* as a Mage, because of the way his projectiles behave, but I don't think that's meant as his primary job- calling Demoman strictly a Mage is giving too much importance to the 'does area damage' trait and ignoring a lot of other stuff. Specifically, Demo has good durability, good direct-engagement capability, and can perform well if not necessarily exceed in most any situation; he's one of the Combat classes, according to Valve's own classification, and is meant to be leading the attack alongside Soldiers as one of the the frontliners. Those are very strong Warrior traits.

[AquaBlade]

Demoman's a bit hard to pin down, because it's a very versatile class. He can certainly *play* as a Mage, because of the way his projectiles behave, but I don't think that's meant as his primary job- calling Demoman strictly a Mage is giving too much importance to the 'does area damage' trait and ignoring a lot of other stuff. Specifically, Demo has good durability, good direct-engagement capability, and can perform well if not necessarily exceed in most any situation; he's one of the Combat classes, according to Valve's own classification, and is meant to be leading the attack alongside Soldiers as one of the the frontliners. Those are very strong Warrior traits.

so that means it can be a rogue/warrior class?
So how exactly do I determine if a class fits in the rogue/warrior class correctly?
Should I use the list above?

[toapat]

The Demoman falls within the Arcane Warrior archetype, at least from what i know about the class.

and i gave the Archetype in the list, followed dirrectly by subtypes of the category.

[AquaBlade]

The Demoman falls within the Arcane Warrior archetype, at least from what i know about the class.

and i gave the Archetype in the list, followed dirrectly by subtypes of the category.

but more often than not, wouldn't the classes from other genres fit into more than one category? with more than one description? Especially when we take both crunch and fluff into account.

[Kuma Kode]

Yes, they can fit into multiple class archetypes depending on what metric you're using to decide.

Like I've been saying, it's arbitrary. You're asking if it can fall under a particular class archetype, and the answer is "yes, for some definitions of class archetype." With a loose enough definition of "support" you could consider the pyro a cleric.

Your question is largely meaningless because of how arbitary class definitions can be when talking about an entire genre, or, in this case, multiple genres. It's like asking what defines a novel as opposed to just a very long short story.

[AquaBlade]

Yes, they can fit into multiple class archetypes depending on what metric you're using to decide.

Like I've been saying, it's arbitrary. You're asking if it can fall under a particular class archetype, and the answer is "yes, for some definitions of class archetype." With a loose enough definition of "support" you could consider the pyro a cleric.

Your question is largely meaningless because of how arbitary class definitions can be when talking about an entire genre, or, in this case, multiple genres. It's like asking what defines a novel as opposed to just a very long short story.

I mean like based on the primary skills and motive of the class. Say you had a paladin that had way more combat abilities than healing abilities. It'd be stupid to argue that it would fit under the cleric category, because that's not its primary goal. I'm talking about the primary motive of the class.
And also, can a druid-type class ever be a rogue/warrior?
I was looking at the druid in grand chase, and it seems a lot like a warrior.

[AquaBlade]

The Demoman falls within the Arcane Warrior archetype, at least from what i know about the class.

and i gave the Archetype in the list, followed dirrectly by subtypes of the category.

btw, I thought the alchemist was more of a mage since it's like a scientist? And what exactly is a druid? Lastly, where would the engineer class go if the alchemist is a rogue?

thanks.

[Kuma Kode]

Yes, a druid could be a rogue/warrior, depending on the class and depending on how you define rogue/warrior.

[AquaBlade]

Yes, a druid could be a rogue/warrior, depending on the class and depending on how you define rogue/warrior.

thanks. but even though each class is arbitrary, there is a certain significance of the class right? I mean there is ssomething that separates the cleric from the rogue the rogue from the warrior and so on.
So it is possible to figure out not which class fits into which which is impossible because classes from other genres can often fit into more than one class, but to compare it to a certain number of classes and see if it fits such categories?
Btw, what do you think about alchemists and engineers?

[Kuma Kode]

What is the point of this exercise? We're on Page 3 and it doesn't seem like we've gone anywhere.

[AquaBlade]

What is the point of this exercise? We're on Page 3 and it doesn't seem like we've gone anywhere.

like I said before, I just wanted to know how classes cross genre relate to each other. In addition since i like the rogue and warrior classes, I would like to know which classes from other genre would fit in.
and aren't we on page 5 lol.

[toapat]

The only Measure by which classes should be defined for Category is Mechanics. Origin of Power, such as which differentiates Paladin and Arcane Warrior, can be so significant, that you can subdivide the category into Paladins and Arcane Warriors.

asto the reason an Alchemist is a Rogue as compared to a Mage, They are typically depicted as Mages because Alchemist concoctions can do some pretty insane ****, but they do it out of mundane resources and without magical help, and their most common creations are concussion grenades (granted, Air-Fuel bombs that ignite the way Alchemist's Fire does are pretty damn new IRL) and poison. They do crazy things

The Reason Engineers are Swashbucklers is because the archetype has to be differentiated because classes rarely lack a defining trait.

Rogues are all Shadowy
Fighters are bold
Support characters hold the party together
Casters hang back and make it explode,
Swashbucklers dance around their opposition.

[AquaBlade]

The only Measure by which classes should be defined for Category is Mechanics. Origin of Power, such as which differentiates Paladin and Arcane Warrior, can be so significant, that you can subdivide the category into Paladins and Arcane Warriors.

asto the reason an Alchemist is a Rogue as compared to a Mage, They are typically depicted as Mages because Alchemist concoctions can do some pretty insane ****, but they do it out of mundane resources and without magical help, and their most common creations are concussion grenades (granted, Air-Fuel bombs that ignite the way Alchemist's Fire does are pretty damn new IRL) and poison. They do crazy things

The Reason Engineers are Swashbucklers is because the archetype has to be differentiated because classes rarely lack a defining trait.

Rogues are all Shadowy
Fighters are bold
Support characters hold the party together
Casters hang back and make it explode,
Swashbucklers dance around their opposition.

I typically think of swashbucklers as between rogues and warriors, as agile fighters bsaically lol.
Wait, so we should only look at mechanics when looking at classes cross-genre?
What does that mean? Does that mean we should just look at crunch and not at fluff like what Kuma Kode said before about everyone being soldiers?
As for support, typically I see bards as a subclass of rogues?
And, alchemists and engineers, don't they fit more as the modern scientist?
I mean, the engineer buildling turrets doesn't feel the same as a rogue who's primarily sneaky.
I think of mages as scholars which is similar ot the engineers and alchemists.
I was also reading this http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/elessarsst/112009/5070_Main-Classes-of-MMORPG
which said that the modern terminology for mages are scientists.

thanks.

[tyckspoon]

Wait, so we should only look at mechanics when looking at classes cross-genre?
What does that mean? Does that mean we should just look at crunch and not at fluff like what Kuma Kode said before about everyone being soldiers?


:smallsigh: Yes. That is what we've been telling you for the last hundred posts. IF your goal is to find other characters that work like ones you liked in the past, THEN you have to *ignore* the fluff of the characters completely and focus on HOW THEY WORK. Paying attention to the fluff of the character will just distract you; it will not help you determine if you might enjoy that character's gameplay.

[AquaBlade]

:smallsigh: Yes. That is what we've been telling you for the last hundred posts. IF your goal is to find other characters that work like ones you liked in the past, THEN you have to *ignore* the fluff of the characters completely and focus on HOW THEY WORK. Paying attention to the fluff of the character will just distract you; it will not help you determine if you might enjoy that character's gameplay.

but isn't there a big difference between a mage who uses magic to become invisible and stealth and a rogue who doesn't use magic? Like the difference between a mesmer and a thief.
So why would demoman be a warrior/rogue if we go by crunch? How does he fit if he's a nuker?
As for support, typically I see bards as a subclass of rogues?
And, alchemists and engineers, don't they fit more as the modern scientist?
I mean, the engineer buildling turrets doesn't feel the same as a rogue who's primarily sneaky.
I think of mages as scholars which is similar ot the engineers and alchemists.
I was also reading this http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/elessars...sses-of-MMORPG
which said that the modern terminology for mages are scientists.

thanks.

[toapat]

I typically think of swashbucklers as between rogues and warriors, as agile fighters bsaically lol.
Wait, so we should only look at mechanics when looking at classes cross-genre?
What does that mean? Does that mean we should just look at crunch and not at fluff like what Kuma Kode said before about everyone being soldiers?
As for support, typically I see bards as a subclass of rogues?
And, alchemists and engineers, don't they fit more as the modern scientist?
I mean, the engineer buildling turrets doesn't feel the same as a rogue who's primarily sneaky.
I think of mages as scholars which is similar ot the engineers and alchemists.
I was also reading this http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/elessarsst/112009/5070_Main-Classes-of-MMORPG
which said that the modern terminology for mages are scientists.

thanks.

Read my post with the breakdown, Engineers are Swashbucklers, not Rogues.

Scientists would be closer to a Bard then an Engineer, Field commander is the Modern version of a mage.

That blog you linked isnt particularly good with phrasing and absolutely sucks for defining modern versions of classes. Modern Archetypes all fall under Fighter, Swashbuckler, rogue, and Support, because they lack Psionics, so there is no casting.


but isn't there a big difference between a mage who uses magic to become invisible and stealth and a rogue who doesn't use magic? Like the difference between a mesmer and a thief.
So why would demoman be a warrior/rogue if we go by crunch? How does he fit if he's a nuker?
As for support, typically I see bards as a subclass of rogues?
And, alchemists and engineers, don't they fit more as the modern scientist?
I mean, the engineer buildling turrets doesn't feel the same as a rogue who's primarily sneaky.
I think of mages as scholars which is similar ot the engineers and alchemists.
I was also reading this http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/elessars...sses-of-MMORPG
which said that the modern terminology for mages are scientists.

thanks.

The Demoman is a Fighter, not a rogue, BECAUSE HE LACKS STEALTH. he is not a caster, BECAUSE HE LACKS CASTING OR PSIONICS. HE is an Arcane Knight because HE is a Lightning Bruiser.

A Mage Merely Means a Specialized Caster, THUS, IT IS NOT AN ARCHETYPE

Bards ARE NOT ROGUES. THEY DO NOT USE STEALTH. A bard Gives you a lap dance as they slit your throat, They then glammor themselves to get the hell out, A Rogue would never be seen.

An Engineer IS NOT A ROGUE. HE DOES NOT USE STEALTH. He builds a Meatgrinder between you and Him.

The Scholar Archetype in GW2 IS A CONSTRUCT. IT SPECIFIES YOU GET CLOTH ARMOR..

Mesmer IS ****ING BULL****..

[AquaBlade]

Read my post with the breakdown, Engineers are Swashbucklers, not Rogues.

Scientists would be closer to a Bard then an Engineer, Field commander is the Modern version of a mage.

That blog you linked isnt particularly good with phrasing and absolutely sucks for defining modern versions of classes. Modern Archetypes all fall under Fighter, Swashbuckler, rogue, and Support, because they lack Psionics, so there is no casting.

swashbucklers are actually subclasses of rogues in a lot of games. Like in Rift.
I don't really know what you mean by swashbucklers. When I hear swashbucklers I just think of an agile fighter, a pirate.
what's wrong with the site though?
Why wouldn't the scientist be a mage? They're both scholars and alchemists play the same role as ranged aoe and nuke.

so you're saying that this site is wrong regarding tf2?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModernDaySciFiRPGClassEquivalents

[toapat]

swashbucklers are actually subclasses of rogues in a lot of games. Like in Rift.
I don't really know what you mean by swashbucklers. When I hear swashbucklers I just think of an agile fighter, a pirate.
what's wrong with the site though?
Why wouldn't the scientist be a mage? They're both scholars and alchemists play the same role as ranged aoe and nuke.

How about you look into how the Whirling Dervish would fight. Call that a Fighter.

Because Alchemists have to get within 10 feet of an enemy to shank them to do anything. they get low damage, long duration, damage over time AoE. They FUNCTION as Mages. THEY FIGHT as Rogues.

That entire blog is useless, BECAUSE it does not understand the existance of the Swashbuckler.

[AquaBlade]

How about you look into how the Whirling Dervish would fight. Call that a Fighter.

Because Alchemists have to get within 10 feet of an enemy to shank them to do anything. they get low damage, long duration, damage over time AoE. They FUNCTION as Mages. THEY FIGHT as Rogues.

That entire blog is useless, BECAUSE it does not understand the existance of the Swashbuckler.

what is a swashbuckler then....
this is what I think of a swashbuckler...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler
And that seems like a fighter more than anything.
And in traditional rpg classes there is no swashbuckler.
Why is the blog useless if we're looking at fighters, rogues, clerics, and mages?"
And also, aren't roles the most important concept. And demoman just shoot grenades that nuke and do ranged aoe damage.
And why can't the sniper be a warrior/rogue. Imo it fits a lot better tahn demoman and pyro.

So exactly what should I analyze if I'm comparing cross-genre classes?
thanks.

[toapat]

what is a swashbuckler then....
this is what I think of a swashbuckler...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler
And that seems like a fighter more than anything.
And in traditional rpg classes there is no swashbuckler.
Why is the blog useless if we're looking at fighters, rogues, clerics, and mages?"
And also, aren't roles the most important concept. And demoman just shoot grenades that nuke and do ranged aoe damage.
And why can't the sniper be a warrior/rogue. Imo it fits a lot better tahn demoman and pyro.

So exactly what should I analyze if I'm comparing cross-genre classes?
thanks.

How about you actually bother reading This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13628938&postcount=125).

The Blog you linked was written by a 12 year old who doesnt know how to spell, let alone understand concepts like there are more forms of magic then Arcane and Divine.

[AquaBlade]

How about you actually bother reading This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13628938&postcount=125).

The Blog you linked was written by a 12 year old who doesnt know how to spell, let alone understand concepts like there are more forms of magic then Arcane and Divine.

lol thanks. I did read it btw, and I just read it again. but tbh, I don't understand why an engineer is a swashbuckler. Given the subclasses mentioned, all the other classes are skilled at combat. The engineer and alchemists by the fluff are scientists and scholars. Wouldn't they fit the mage more than anything else?
In addition, shouldn't we analyze the role as nuke and ranged aoe which is a demoman? The things like close range don't those factors change when relating with other genres?

[toapat]

lol thanks. I did read it btw, and I just read it again. but tbh, I don't understand why an engineer is a swashbuckler. Given the subclasses mentioned, all the other classes are skilled at combat. The engineer and alchemists by the fluff are scientists and scholars. Wouldn't they fit the mage more than anything else?
In addition, shouldn't we analyze the role as nuke and ranged aoe which is a demoman? The things like close range don't those factors change when relating with other genres?

Again, the Demoman is an Arcane Knight with a gunmetal grey paintjob. the Fighter Archetype only means good with weapons and survivable.

You only qualify to be under the CASTER Archetype when:
You use Arcane, Divine, Pacts, or Psionics.
You are Squishy
You Suck at physical combat.

Tank, DPS, Support, Healer, Nuker Count only last when mattering in terms of where you go on the list.

[AquaBlade]

Again, the Demoman is an Arcane Knight with a gunmetal grey paintjob. the Fighter Archetype only means good with weapons and survivable.

You only qualify to be under the CASTER Archetype when:
You use Arcane, Divine, Pacts, or Psionics.
You are Squishy
You Suck at physical combat.

Tank, DPS, Support, Healer, Nuker Count only last when mattering in terms of where you go on the list.

lol I'm trying to figure out when a class fits into the rogue/warrior category?
When will it fit and when will it never fit?
I don't understand why an engineer is a swashbuckler. Given the subclasses mentioned, all the other classes are skilled at combat. The engineer and alchemists by the fluff are scientists and scholars. Wouldn't they fit the mage more than anything else?
thanks.

[toapat]

lol I'm trying to figure out when a class fits into the rogue/warrior category?
When will it fit and when will it never fit?
I don't understand why an engineer is a swashbuckler. Given the subclasses mentioned, all the other classes are skilled at combat. The engineer and alchemists by the fluff are scientists and scholars. Wouldn't they fit the mage more than anything else?
thanks.

It will fit under fighter When:

It has good Survivability
When it is not Dexterity based

A class is a Rogue when:
It is Stealthy
It is Stealthy
It is Stealthy

[AquaBlade]

It will fit under fighter When:

It has good Survivability
When it is not Dexterity based

A class is a Rogue when:
It is Stealthy
It is Stealthy
It is Stealthy

how did you get all those descriptions then.
and when I mean rogues/warriors I mean everything in between as well which would include swashbucklers such as monks and agile fighters and such. I don't know why you'd put it as a new class when it is a hybrid... So if it's just a hybrid why would that blog be wrong???
And also, I don't understand why an engineer is a swashbuckler. Given the subclasses mentioned, all the other classes are skilled at combat. The engineer and alchemists by the fluff are scientists and scholars. Wouldn't they fit the mage more than anything else?
thanks.

[tyckspoon]

And also, I don't understand why an engineer is a swashbuckler. Given the subclasses mentioned, all the other classes are skilled at combat. The engineer and alchemists by the fluff are scientists and scholars. Wouldn't they fit the mage more than anything else?
thanks.

You're conflating "What it looks like" and "what it does" again. You won't get clean answers as long as you keep doing that. The TF2 Engineer is a Support/'Priest' variety- he builds safepoints, resupplies the rest of his team, and provides rapid transport. But that isn't his classification just because he's called 'Engineer' and makes stuff, it's his classification because it's what he does.

[AquaBlade]

You're conflating "What it looks like" and "what it does" again. You won't get clean answers as long as you keep doing that. The TF2 Engineer is a Support/'Priest' variety- he builds safepoints, resupplies the rest of his team, and provides rapid transport. But that isn't his classification just because he's called 'Engineer' and makes stuff, it's his classification because it's what he does.

so how is he a swashbuckler when he's a support class?
So is the crunch all that matters when comparing cross-genre?
and when I mean rogues/warriors I mean everything in between as well which would include swashbucklers such as monks and agile fighters and such. I don't know why you'd put it as a new class when it is a hybrid... So if it's just a hybrid why would that blog be wrong???
as for mages, for example, the siren from borderlands 2, that'd be a mage right?
But if the crunch is all that defines, then for mages it's just aoe ranged and nuking.
so a rocket launcher guy wouldn't fit into the rogue/warrior/swashbuckler category?

[tyckspoon]

But if the crunch is all that defines, then for mages it's just aoe ranged and nuking.
so a rocket launcher guy wouldn't fit into the rogue/warrior/swashbuckler category?

Mages are *only* ranged combat, have little to no ability to fight effectively in melee or close quarters, and die *really quickly* if somebody gets into that range where they can't fight. AoE is *not* a defining feature- that's just a mis-applied carryover from the fantasy genre, where magic is usually the only power source allowed to do big area effects.

Rocket Launcher Guy is a Mage if:
The rocket launcher makes him a big easy target to kill and
the rocket launcher isn't itself a good general-use weapon and
he doesn't have a secondary weapon that covers the points where the rocket launcher isn't good.

If those aren't true, he's probably a Warrior who just happens to be in a setting where things that make other things explode aren't the province of magic.

[toapat]

how did you get all those descriptions then.
and when I mean rogues/warriors I mean everything in between as well which would include swashbucklers such as monks and agile fighters and such. I don't know why you'd put it as a new class when it is a hybrid... So if it's just a hybrid why would that blog be wrong???
And also, I don't understand why an engineer is a swashbuckler. Given the subclasses mentioned, all the other classes are skilled at combat. The engineer and alchemists by the fluff are scientists and scholars. Wouldn't they fit the mage more than anything else?
thanks.

That is because IT ISNT a hybrid. The gameplay of Swashbucklers is similar to, BUT NOT EITHER a Fighter or Rogue. a Whirling Dervish is the very Definition of a RL Swashbuckler class.

Because They are NOT caster classes. An evoker throws an explosive, and it leaves a 30' crater with a convection tube and mushroom cloud. The Grenades of an Engineer and Alchemist are light, small, and quick. An engineer is going to be shooting a bolt action 3" rifle, an Alchemist is going to chug a canteen of Fantasy steroids and punch someone through the face.

MAGE IS NOT AN ARCHETYPE

TF Engineer is a BINDER, not an ENGINEER

[AquaBlade]

That is because IT ISNT a hybrid. The gameplay of Swashbucklers is similar to, BUT NOT EITHER a Fighter or Rogue. a Whirling Dervish is the very Definition of a RL Swashbuckler class.

Because They are NOT caster classes. An evoker throws an explosive, and it leaves a 30' crater with a convection tube and mushroom cloud. The Grenades of an Engineer and Alchemist are light, small, and quick. An engineer is going to be shooting a bolt action 3" rifle, an Alchemist is going to chug a canteen of Fantasy steroids and punch someone through the face.

MAGE IS NOT AN ARCHETYPE

TF Engineer is a BINDER, not an ENGINEER

why do they have to be casters? Didn't you say it was the crunch that matters which is their role? As long as its like a glass cannon like a sniper then he's a mage because he nukes?
And how is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler not a warrior/rogue. It's an agile warrior. Its a swordsman.
And honestly, I've never even heard of this class before, it's not a traditional archetype by original D&D standards which only consists of rogues, warriors, clerics, and mages. Everything else is a subclass/hybrid of them.

What characteristics could a rogue/warrior possibly share with pyro and demoman? I just want to know what classes fit into rogue/warrior category.
How come the tvtropes site would say that demoman is a mage then.

[AquaBlade]

just one last thing.
The way you describe it, it sounds like there's only one answer for it. Whether it can fit within rogue/warrior category or not there's only one answer based on analysis of all the factors? How come other people would say that sniper is a mage or a rogue. Is it because they jsut fit under multiple classes?

[toapat]

why do they have to be casters? Didn't you say it was the crunch that matters which is their role? As long as its like a glass cannon like a sniper then he's a mage because he nukes?
And how is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler not a warrior/rogue. It's an agile warrior. Its a swordsman.
And honestly, I've never even heard of this class before, it's not a traditional archetype by original D&D standards which only consists of rogues, warriors, clerics, and mages. Everything else is a subclass/hybrid of them.

What characteristics could a rogue/warrior possibly share with pyro and demoman? I just want to know what classes fit into rogue/warrior category.
How come the tvtropes site would say that demoman is a mage then.

What you fail to comprehend about the caster Archetype is 2fold:
Casters will die in the presence of an overly pungent Fart
Casters deal damage in quanities comperable to Nuclear Warheads.

What Engineers and Alchemists have:
Both are rather suvivable in melee. Alchemists get it from chugging roids and heal pots, Engineers are downright invincible once they have estabilished a quality meatgrinder.
Both DO NOT find their primary damage from Grenades.

Rogues Rely on Stealth To Survive
Fighters Rely on Health and Mitigation To Survive
Swashbucklers Rely on Skill to Survive. Mechanically, THEY LOOK LIKE Rogues and Fighters, Just Like Engineers, Binders, and Necromancers look similar Mechanically. FUNCTIONALLY They play in a completely different way. The old theoretical Dodge Tank is an Example, and GWs Assassin is an obvious example in games.

TvTropes is Rarely wrong WHEN IT COMES TO TV AND THE INTERNET. IN TERMS OF VIDEOGAMES, They ARENT within a snowflake's chance in hell of being right.

[AquaBlade]

Just two final questions:
1) So when would a ranger and a bard be a rogue? I see the ranger as a subclass of rogues/warriors and bards as a subclass of rogues pretty often in games like rift. Even though you said that bard is a support class.
2) So basically the only thing I want to know if it has enough defining characteristics to be called a rogue/warrior. What are the basic characteristics/traits that I should look at to decide whether it is? I don't really care if it could be called a mage or a swashbuckler or a dog. Just rogue/warrior lol. And assuming that they can use ranged weaponry as well, what are their defining characteristics. And tbh, I can see monks/bare-handed fighters and pirates and agile warriors as a hybrid of rogues/warriors.

[AquaBlade]

what exactly defines a rogue/warrior?
For example, would a guy wielding a rocket launcher and in charge of mortars still be a rogue/warrior? Or the support class from battlefield 3?
And finally, what exactly is the casting class/magic in modern context? I've seen people label medieval magic as just science and technology. So wouldn't that just relate engineers/alchemists to magic.

[Wardog]

Just two final questions:
1) So when would a ranger and a bard be a rogue? I see the ranger as a subclass of rogues/warriors and bards as a subclass of rogues pretty often in games like rift. Even though you said that bard is a support class.
2) So basically the only thing I want to know if it has enough defining characteristics to be called a rogue/warrior. What are the basic characteristics/traits that I should look at to decide whether it is? I don't really care if it could be called a mage or a swashbuckler or a dog. Just rogue/warrior lol. And assuming that they can use ranged weaponry as well, what are their defining characteristics. And tbh, I can see monks/bare-handed fighters and pirates and agile warriors as a hybrid of rogues/warriors.

Personally, I think you are overanalysing things. The correct answer for those questions is probably just "whatever the game designer wanted at that particular time", at least in most cases.

However, if we insist on trying to define it, I would suggest (building on my post #99), that it depends what paradigm you are designing your story/game along: "traditional fantasy" vs. "combat-oriented MMO".


In the "traditional fantasy" paradigm, character classes are (IMO) defined mainly by their role in the story.

If a character's main role is to fight and defeat enemies through strength, toughness, and/or skill at arms, then they are a "warrior".

If a character's main role is to solve (or avoid) problems through cunning and guile, they are a "rogue".

If a character's main role is to understand ancient lore, solve mystical problems, and counter enemy magic, then they are a "wizard". (Actually being a "blaster" is strictly optional).

Bilbo was brought along in The Hobbit to burgle, and outsmart his opponents and so fits the "rogue" archetype (despite being utterly "unroguish" in personality). Gandalf was probably the best fighter in both The Hobbit and LotR and had an awesome magic sword, but his story-role was "wizard", not "warrior".


In contrast, in the "combat-oriented MMO" paradigm, everyone is expected to be equally useful in a fight, and classes are determined by how they contribute in a fight:

If a character's main role (or defining characteristic) is being tough enough that they don't mind getting attacked or hit, then they are (probably) the "warrior".

If no such character exists, or other classes also fit the "warrior" role, then the "warrior" is probably the offensive fighter(s) that least has to worry about getting hit/damaged.

If a character's main role is damaging the enemy, while making use of terrain and mobility to avoid damage (e.g. a flanker or sniper), or their main role is to use stealth or invisibility to do whatever it is they do), then they are (probably) the "rogue".

If no such character exists, then the "rogue" would probably be some sort of support class that e.g. sets or disarms traps, or picks locks/hacks computers etc to allow the rest of their team to access places they otherwise couldn't.

SWTOR examples: Commando Trooper vs Gunslinger Smuggler. Both are ranged DPS clases, but the former wears heavy armour enabling him to (mostly) shrug off being shot, while the latter wears medium armour and relies on diving behind cover to avoid damage. According to my definitons, this would make the Commando a warrior and the Scoundrel a rogue.


As for the "wizard" - I think that's a bit more complex. I disagree with toapat's claim that "Casters deal damage in quanities comperable to Nuclear Warheads". That's a common implemetnation, but I think the more fundamental concept is "character that is fragile and sucks in melee, but can do awesomely powerful stuff that can change the course of the battle".

That "awesome stuff" could be blasting, or healing (assuming you aren't also including a medic/cleric archetype), or summoning, or buffing/debuffing, or crowd control.

Essentially, this is the guy that can potentially win the battle for you, provided the other classes can keep him safe.

[toapat]

*quality debate completely missing the point*

yes, in Stories, we have the Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, McCoy. In games, you have the Fighter, the Rogue, the Swashbuckler, the Caster, and the Support.

the Wizard you argue about would be a support character, not a caster.

A Fighter is defined as a combatant who fights with force, can take a few good hits, and does pretty damn well.

A Rogue does their job, but they do it through stealth, duplicity, and advantage. If they lack those, they soon find themselves cooking over an open flame.

A Swashbuckler fights with speed and dexterity.

A Caster fights with the big guns, be that mind control or superweapons.

A Support role character either buffs/heals the party, or performs at non-combat. they can be exceptional in this role, but suck alone.

[AquaBlade]

yes, in Stories, we have the Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, McCoy. In games, you have the Fighter, the Rogue, the Swashbuckler, the Caster, and the Support.

the Wizard you argue about would be a support character, not a caster.

A Fighter is defined as a combatant who fights with force, can take a few good hits, and does pretty damn well.

A Rogue does their job, but they do it through stealth, duplicity, and advantage. If they lack those, they soon find themselves cooking over an open flame.

A Swashbuckler fights with speed and dexterity.

A Caster fights with the big guns, be that mind control or superweapons.

A Support role character either buffs/heals the party, or performs at non-combat. they can be exceptional in this role, but suck alone.

1) tbh, I still think that swashbucklers are subclasses of rogues. Especially since I've never heard of them as a traditional archetype. It's just like the blade dancer in rift which is a subclass of rogues.
2) Anyways, so as for casters, that means that the rocket launcher guys or people in charge of mortars would be casters? Could they ever fit in the rogue/warrior category?
3) Again, I'm not trying to shoehorn the classes into a specific archetype. I'm just trying to figure out whether a class belongs in the rogue/warrior archetype which means that they should share a significant enough similarity. Not just like all the classes are warriors. As for the support class, wouldn't the guardian in guild wars 2 be a support role? But I definitely would think of it as fittign the warrior category as well. Is this class an example of something that can fit multiple classes?
4) And also given the bard example, so that means that rogues don't necessarily have to be combat-oriented characters? They just have to be sly, they could be deceitful and have guile, tricking people and such?
5) In addition, what exaclty is magic in the modern context? Is it just technology and science? Which means engineer and alchemist classes would be mages and wouldn't fit inside the rogue/warrior category? Would they be able to fit? I've heard something along the lines of, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
6) As for ranger classes, how come the beastmaster class is also called a ranger? If they rely on pets as their primary source of combat? Don't rangers generally use bows and arrows?

thanks.

[The_Jackal]

I think you're falling down the rabbit-hole of trying to document every single asymmetry between various 'typical' MMO classes. The truth is, what makes a 'class' is the summation of whatever abilities and traits the designers choose to bestow upon it. In other words, whether a Swashbucker or a Bard is a sub-type of rogue depends entirely on how the game designers choose to implement those various classes.

What really has been the foundation of MMO design since Everquest hasn't been the typical Dungeons and Dragons classes (Cleric, Fighter, Thief, Wizard), but rather the roles each game's classes occupy, and how their respective abilities make each class more or less suited to those roles.

To illustrate what I'm talking about, let's step out of the fantasy genre for a moment and look at City of Heroes. CoH had 5 archetypes:

Tanker (The classical "Brick", a tough melee character in the Thing/Colossus/Hulk vein)
Scrapper (A high-damage melee character, a'la Spider Man/Wolverine/Captain America)
Blaster (A high damage, AOE character, think Cyclops/Havok)
Controller (A medium damage, fragile character with lots of hard control, think Jean Grey/Magneto)
Defender (A medium damage support character, with many 'soft' control powers and buffs and debuffs, think Storm)

This actually created a strong role for each AT, gave them the tools to synergize well in a group, and mostly allowed them to operate without the typical 'Tank/DPS/Heals' blueprint other MMOs offered. Yes, there were healers, but most heals had a cooldown, so they couldn't just be spammed nonstop. This helped get the healer out of the whack-a-mole job, and let them actually participate in the fights. Also, the power of the debuffs were such that they could really, really swing the outcome of a fight. In WoW or SWTOR, you're lucky if a debuff drops the boss damage output by as much at 5%, and the combined effect of all available buffs and debuffs got really, really powerful, to the point where all-Defender or all-Controller teams were viable.

Now CoH wasn't without its weaknesses. Encounters were a lot harder for the designers to Balance, so rather than try, the introduced a difficulty slider, to allow the players to tune the challenge of the content they were playing to the power of their group. They also had a dearth of internally generated content, so they came up with a user-designed content system. These ended up having some adverse effects as enterprising players tried to game the system with farm levels, rather than try to make fun and challenging scenarios.

So, instead of thinking about what a class should or shouldn't do, think about what their roles are within the group. Think about how each class' unique set of abilities and traits gives them distinct asymmetries (Hunters and Warlocks get pets! Warriors have lots of mobility! Mages are fragile but elusive! Rogues and Druids have stealth!), and think about how those abilities, traits and asymmetries complement the other classes when they're grouped together.

[AquaBlade]

I think you're falling down the rabbit-hole of trying to document every single asymmetry between various 'typical' MMO classes. The truth is, what makes a 'class' is the summation of whatever abilities and traits the designers choose to bestow upon it. In other words, whether a Swashbucker or a Bard is a sub-type of rogue depends entirely on how the game designers choose to implement those various classes.

What really has been the foundation of MMO design since Everquest hasn't been the typical Dungeons and Dragons classes (Cleric, Fighter, Thief, Wizard), but rather the roles each game's classes occupy, and how their respective abilities make each class more or less suited to those roles.

To illustrate what I'm talking about, let's step out of the fantasy genre for a moment and look at City of Heroes. CoH had 5 archetypes:

Tanker (The classical "Brick", a tough melee character in the Thing/Colossus/Hulk vein)
Scrapper (A high-damage melee character, a'la Spider Man/Wolverine/Captain America)
Blaster (A high damage, AOE character, think Cyclops/Havok)
Controller (A medium damage, fragile character with lots of hard control, think Jean Grey/Magneto)
Defender (A medium damage support character, with many 'soft' control powers and buffs and debuffs, think Storm)

This actually created a strong role for each AT, gave them the tools to synergize well in a group, and mostly allowed them to operate without the typical 'Tank/DPS/Heals' blueprint other MMOs offered. Yes, there were healers, but most heals had a cooldown, so they couldn't just be spammed nonstop. This helped get the healer out of the whack-a-mole job, and let them actually participate in the fights. Also, the power of the debuffs were such that they could really, really swing the outcome of a fight. In WoW or SWTOR, you're lucky if a debuff drops the boss damage output by as much at 5%, and the combined effect of all available buffs and debuffs got really, really powerful, to the point where all-Defender or all-Controller teams were viable.

Now CoH wasn't without its weaknesses. Encounters were a lot harder for the designers to Balance, so rather than try, the introduced a difficulty slider, to allow the players to tune the challenge of the content they were playing to the power of their group. They also had a dearth of internally generated content, so they came up with a user-designed content system. These ended up having some adverse effects as enterprising players tried to game the system with farm levels, rather than try to make fun and challenging scenarios.

So, instead of thinking about what a class should or shouldn't do, think about what their roles are within the group. Think about how each class' unique set of abilities and traits gives them distinct asymmetries (Hunters and Warlocks get pets! Warriors have lots of mobility! Mages are fragile but elusive! Rogues and Druids have stealth!), and think about how those abilities, traits and asymmetries complement the other classes when they're grouped together.

lol thanks. except, I pretty much like every single class. I'm fine with a defense warrior like the guardian or a tank warrior or a dps rogue or a stealth assassin or a fragile ranger that attacks from afar like a mage. I'm even fine with healing or support if that's the role a bard plays because I enjoy playing such types of characters. maybe the only thing I don't enjoy is pure healing like a cleric.
1) tbh, I still think that swashbucklers are subclasses of rogues. Especially since I've never heard of them as a traditional archetype. It's just like the blade dancer in rift which is a subclass of rogues.
2) Anyways, so as for casters, that means that the rocket launcher guys or people in charge of mortars would be casters? Could they ever fit in the rogue/warrior category?
3) Again, I'm not trying to shoehorn the classes into a specific archetype. I'm just trying to figure out whether a class belongs in the rogue/warrior archetype which means that they should share a significant enough similarity. Not just like all the classes are warriors. As for the support class, wouldn't the guardian in guild wars 2 be a support role? But I definitely would think of it as fittign the warrior category as well. Is this class an example of something that can fit multiple classes?
4) And also given the bard example, so that means that rogues don't necessarily have to be combat-oriented characters? They just have to be sly, they could be deceitful and have guile, tricking people and such?
5) In addition, what exaclty is magic in the modern context? Is it just technology and science? Which means engineer and alchemist classes would be mages and wouldn't fit inside the rogue/warrior category? Would they be able to fit? I've heard something along the lines of, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
6) As for ranger classes, how come the beastmaster class is also called a ranger? If they rely on pets as their primary source of combat? Don't rangers generally use bows and arrows?

[toapat]

lol thanks. except, I pretty much like every single class. I'm fine with a defense warrior like the guardian or a tank warrior or a dps rogue or a stealth assassin or a fragile ranger that attacks from afar like a mage. I'm even fine with healing or support if that's the role a bard plays because I enjoy playing such types of characters. maybe the only thing I don't enjoy is pure healing like a cleric.
1) tbh, I still think that swashbucklers are subclasses of rogues. Especially since I've never heard of them as a traditional archetype. It's just like the blade dancer in rift which is a subclass of rogues.
2) Anyways, so as for casters, that means that the rocket launcher guys or people in charge of mortars would be casters? Could they ever fit in the rogue/warrior category?
3) Again, I'm not trying to shoehorn the classes into a specific archetype. I'm just trying to figure out whether a class belongs in the rogue/warrior archetype which means that they should share a significant enough similarity. Not just like all the classes are warriors. As for the support class, wouldn't the guardian in guild wars 2 be a support role? But I definitely would think of it as fittign the warrior category as well. Is this class an example of something that can fit multiple classes?
4) And also given the bard example, so that means that rogues don't necessarily have to be combat-oriented characters? They just have to be sly, they could be deceitful and have guile, tricking people and such?
5) In addition, what exaclty is magic in the modern context? Is it just technology and science? Which means engineer and alchemist classes would be mages and wouldn't fit inside the rogue/warrior category? Would they be able to fit? I've heard something along the lines of, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
6) As for ranger classes, how come the beastmaster class is also called a ranger? If they rely on pets as their primary source of combat? Don't rangers generally use bows and arrows?

1: A swashbuckler is not a Rogue, it is not a Fighter, it is a third archtype defined by its lack of stealth, and lack of more typical survival mechanics. IE: a Whirling Dervish would be in DnD terms, under the effects of a +4 Circumstance bonus to AC while moving.

2: It entirely depends on whether the guy with the mortar team or the guy with the missile array is able to survive his own weaponry. A Caster will only do so with absolute luck.

3: The Guardian is a Paladin, a Paladin is a Fighter. EVERYONE in GW2 is support to the Paladin.

4: Rogues ARE NOT combat first. They are Stealth First. IF they are a combat orriented rogue, THEN they fall under the category of Assassin. Bards, being buffers, are Support Characters. only crappy Dragon Age bards fall under the Rogue category, because they are of the Infiltraitor subtype.

5: Psionics are the Modern version of magic.

6: The Beastmaster is not a subtype of ranger, it is a subtype of the general Category of Marksman. This is not an Archetype like Fighter/Rogue/Swashbuckler/Caster/Support, it is simply a standard set of mechanics that recur often enough that the same thing can be seen many times. Engineers, Artificers, Rangers, and Huntsmen all are within this. The beastmaster is called a ranger because the beastmaster has a pet. He is more closely related to the Huntsman.

[Daremonai]

I have to admit, after having read all 6 pages I'm still at a loss as to what we're trying to achieve here.

While there are archetypes of rogue, mage, warrior, etc. around, they're fuzzy archetypes. This entire thread serves as a fine example of people having different expectations of each one - there may be common thread between them, but it's nigh impossible to agree where to draw the lines.

I don't think that attempting to strictly codify classes into neat and tidy boxes is a good way to tell if you'll enjoy playing something - particularly since whoever made the game probably disagrees with you on where the lines between archetypes lie. You'd be far better off just judging each case on its merits than trying to come up with some overarching unified theory of classness.

[Wardog]

I have to admit, after having read all 6 pages I'm still at a loss as to what we're trying to achieve here.

While there are archetypes of rogue, mage, warrior, etc. around, they're fuzzy archetypes. This entire thread serves as a fine example of people having different expectations of each one - there may be common thread between them, but it's nigh impossible to agree where to draw the lines.

I don't think that attempting to strictly codify classes into neat and tidy boxes is a good way to tell if you'll enjoy playing something - particularly since whoever made the game probably disagrees with you on where the lines between archetypes lie. You'd be far better off just judging each case on its merits than trying to come up with some overarching unified theory of classness.

To be honest, I think the whole problem with this thread is illustrated by the very first question in the OP:

1) Is it reasonable for anyone to like a wide variety of classes?

I can't imagine any reason why the answer to that would not be an emphatic "yes" (as the second poster said), but I get the impression the OP couldn't quite accept that (at least at first), and felt that therefore there must be some fundamental characteristic that unites all the classes they enjoy playing as into one or two "superclasses".

[Alejandro]

Aquablade, just curious, how old are you?

[AquaBlade]

1: A swashbuckler is not a Rogue, it is not a Fighter, it is a third archtype defined by its lack of stealth, and lack of more typical survival mechanics. IE: a Whirling Dervish would be in DnD terms, under the effects of a +4 Circumstance bonus to AC while moving.

2: It entirely depends on whether the guy with the mortar team or the guy with the missile array is able to survive his own weaponry. A Caster will only do so with absolute luck.

3: The Guardian is a Paladin, a Paladin is a Fighter. EVERYONE in GW2 is support to the Paladin.

4: Rogues ARE NOT combat first. They are Stealth First. IF they are a combat orriented rogue, THEN they fall under the category of Assassin. Bards, being buffers, are Support Characters. only crappy Dragon Age bards fall under the Rogue category, because they are of the Infiltraitor subtype.

5: Psionics are the Modern version of magic.

6: The Beastmaster is not a subtype of ranger, it is a subtype of the general Category of Marksman. This is not an Archetype like Fighter/Rogue/Swashbuckler/Caster/Support, it is simply a standard set of mechanics that recur often enough that the same thing can be seen many times. Engineers, Artificers, Rangers, and Huntsmen all are within this. The beastmaster is called a ranger because the beastmaster has a pet. He is more closely related to the Huntsman.

1) Tbh, I've seen swashbuckler type classes as a subclass of rogues in games like Rift. Are you looking at more of roles than traditional archetypes? Because like I said warriors/rogues can play multiple roles. I've seen warriors like in Dragon Age where they play purely defensive roles or just play the role of commander and strategist. In the past, the rogue has commonly played a utility role disarming traps, planting traps (that's more of a ranger job), picking locks, pickpocketing useful items, scouting the dungeon before the team goes in, etc. Even the paladin is a half healer half warrior type of character. Assuming you're replacing the tank with just the word fighter, I've seen plenty of warrior classes be dps warriors.

2) But isn't the only viable way to compare like you said, just compare the roles? So the mortar/rocket launcher guy play the ranged aoe, nuke type character? Isn't casting and looking at magic just the fluff?
Then again, don't rangers play the same role as mages as well?
Even though I don't agree with such a classification as mages have plenty of abilities as seen in skyrim all of which eliminates the need for roles since all the magic there covers all the roles lol. For example, alteration for tanking and conjuration for melee weapons. But it's just that in most mmorpgs, mages play the role of nukers and ranged aoe/dps.

3) Imo, rogues aren't defined by stealth. They're defined by guile, trickery and deceit. Which can come in the form of stealth but isn't limited to that. So you are classifying based on roles? Such characteristics can also come in the form of agility and a slick tongue. The occasional bard that sweet talks people and picks their pockets on the street would be a rogue. It's just when all they do is play music that confuses me. I also think of rogues as resorting to tricks besides stealth such as throwing dust into enemies' eyes and utilizing unorthodox methods of combat such as shooting one in a sword fight or kicking people in vulnerable areas which results in critical hits.

4) So as the saying goes, "Any sufficeintly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", that means that high-tech classes like engineers are mages? So they wouldn't fit inside the rogue/warrior category? And alchemists as well. Tbh, both of these classes are scholars, so why would alchemist be the rogue when it's a scholar just like the mage?
Like in tf2. It's just that in games like ratchet and clank, it seems more like a gunner which would fit inside the rogue/warrior category. And I'm including rangers and swashbuckler (which I mean to be agile fighters basically) inside.


5) If the beastmaster were a subclass of rangers/marksman, and they are a subclass of warriors in rift btw, would they purely rely on pets as their only source of damage? Or would that make them a different class?

6) Finally, in the same way we are comparing mmorpg classes to classes in other genres, is it possible to compare such classes with video games? For example we may label sonic the hedgehog as a rogue, or a swashbuckler as you describe it, and ace attorney as a rogue/warrior? What would he pass as? Since rogues generally have a slick tongue but warriors usually uphold justice and chivalry. And infamous 2? While cole has lightning powers like the mage, he's also a powerful melee combatant in the second game.

7) Additionally, in league of legends, they have scientists/engineers like heimerdinger as mages and alchemists/bombers like ziggs as mages as well.
thanks.

[toapat]

1) Tbh, I've seen swashbuckler type classes as a subclass of rogues in games like Rift. Are you looking at more of roles than traditional archetypes? Because like I said warriors/rogues can play multiple roles. I've seen warriors like in Dragon Age where they play purely defensive roles or just play the role of commander and strategist. In the past, the rogue has commonly played a utility role disarming traps, planting traps (that's more of a ranger job), picking locks, pickpocketing useful items, scouting the dungeon before the team goes in, etc. Even the paladin is a half healer half warrior type of character. Assuming you're replacing the tank with just the word fighter, I've seen plenty of warrior classes be dps warriors.

2) But isn't the only viable way to compare like you said, just compare the roles? So the mortar/rocket launcher guy play the ranged aoe, nuke type character? Isn't casting and looking at magic just the fluff?
Then again, don't rangers play the same role as mages as well?
Even though I don't agree with such a classification as mages have plenty of abilities as seen in skyrim all of which eliminates the need for roles since all the magic there covers all the roles lol. For example, alteration for tanking and conjuration for melee weapons. But it's just that in most mmorpgs, mages play the role of nukers and ranged aoe/dps.

3) Imo, rogues aren't defined by stealth. They're defined by guile, trickery and deceit. Which can come in the form of stealth but isn't limited to that. So you are classifying based on roles? Such characteristics can also come in the form of agility and a slick tongue. The occasional bard that sweet talks people and picks their pockets on the street would be a rogue. It's just when all they do is play music that confuses me. I also think of rogues as resorting to tricks besides stealth such as throwing dust into enemies' eyes and utilizing unorthodox methods of combat such as shooting one in a sword fight or kicking people in vulnerable areas which results in critical hits.

4) So as the saying goes, "Any sufficeintly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", that means that high-tech classes like engineers are mages? So they wouldn't fit inside the rogue/warrior category? And alchemists as well. Tbh, both of these classes are scholars, so why would alchemist be the rogue when it's a scholar just like the mage?
Like in tf2. It's just that in games like ratchet and clank, it seems more like a gunner which would fit inside the rogue/warrior category. And I'm including rangers and swashbuckler (which I mean to be agile fighters basically) inside.


5) If the beastmaster were a subclass of rangers/marksman, and they are a subclass of warriors in rift btw, would they purely rely on pets as their only source of damage? Or would that make them a different class?

6) Finally, in the same way we are comparing mmorpg classes to classes in other genres, is it possible to compare such classes with video games? For example we may label sonic the hedgehog as a rogue, or a swashbuckler as you describe it, and ace attorney as a rogue/warrior? What would he pass as? Since rogues generally have a slick tongue but warriors usually uphold justice and chivalry. And infamous 2? While cole has lightning powers like the mage, he's also a powerful melee combatant in the second game.

7) Additionally, in league of legends, they have scientists/engineers like heimerdinger as mages and alchemists/bombers like ziggs as mages as well.
thanks.

1: Let me kill Rift from this entire discussion: Rift wasnt relevant when it came out, barely lasted a few months, and we heard nothing about it a month after release. What im defining are not Roles, but Archetypes based off of mechanics.

you are going to find very few classes that you can look at and outright not mistake as a rogue because a Rogue is typically a Stealth (Manditory), Dexterous (Optional) combatant, while a Swashbuckler is defined by their lack of typical mechanics to create a good class (IE, Guildwars Dervish). the actual secondary techniques and attributes arent nearly as important. The paladin is a holy warrior subtype of Fighter.


2: Casters only in DnD can not be summarized as human versions of the Destroyer Warship.
How you fight is more important then Where you Fight from.
Skyrim doesnt have Mages, you have Schools into which you can specialize and train. The proper term is General Practitioner in most cases unless you somehow completely ignore Destruction while powerleveling Conjuration.

3: Rogues again, are Stealth Characters. if DnD was competent, Paladins would get lockpicking because it is much nicer to pick the lock of an innocent then rip the front door off its hinges. The out of Combat Utility of Rogues is not actually a class feature, it is just something that the Fighter category will typically lack.

Take a look at the CO forums on Bards, or just look at Elan post Competence: Bards dont just sing, they have a few side talents, as well as the ability to swing combat by using simple divide and conquer strategies. Until Hinjo got himself a double helping of Disintegrate, Elan was singlehandedly distracting AN ARMY OF MILLIONS. THAT is not something that a Skillmonkey can do, or a character that has a primary specialty of Stealth. expecially considering Stealth means either blending in or not being detected.

4: No, that Saying doesnt apply, as the entire existance of that statement is also the reason why advancing electronics to the point where the only things that can understand how they work are other electronics is a really bad thing. Engineers and Alchemists are Swashbucklers and Rogues respectively because one fights by acting as an expert stonemason, and the other fights by distraction, sleight of hand, and poison.

5: Rift, again, was a bad MMO with no real impact to the game. A beastmaster mechanically fights like a cross between the Engineer and the Huntsman, because he is willing to get up close, but has more then one pet with him.

6: If we were to compare Sonic's moves to a class, his class would be Cannonball. The Archetype system is based off of instances where there is intended to be co operative group play, which isnt what Sonic does.

7: League of Legends is a game where every PC is either an Arcane Knight, a Bard, or a Caster. The game doesnt represent an RPG anyway because it is a Strategic Team Competive Combat Game where the team mates do better when they dont actually try to play off eachother.

[AquaBlade]

1: Let me kill Rift from this entire discussion: Rift wasnt relevant when it came out, barely lasted a few months, and we heard nothing about it a month after release. What im defining are not Roles, but Archetypes based off of mechanics.

you are going to find very few classes that you can look at and outright not mistake as a rogue because a Rogue is typically a Stealth (Manditory), Dexterous (Optional) combatant, while a Swashbuckler is defined by their lack of typical mechanics to create a good class (IE, Guildwars Dervish). the actual secondary techniques and attributes arent nearly as important. The paladin is a holy warrior subtype of Fighter.


2: Casters only in DnD can not be summarized as human versions of the Destroyer Warship.
How you fight is more important then Where you Fight from.
Skyrim doesnt have Mages, you have Schools into which you can specialize and train. The proper term is General Practitioner in most cases unless you somehow completely ignore Destruction while powerleveling Conjuration.

3: Rogues again, are Stealth Characters. if DnD was competent, Paladins would get lockpicking because it is much nicer to pick the lock of an innocent then rip the front door off its hinges. The out of Combat Utility of Rogues is not actually a class feature, it is just something that the Fighter category will typically lack.

Take a look at the CO forums on Bards, or just look at Elan post Competence: Bards dont just sing, they have a few side talents, as well as the ability to swing combat by using simple divide and conquer strategies. Until Hinjo got himself a double helping of Disintegrate, Elan was singlehandedly distracting AN ARMY OF MILLIONS. THAT is not something that a Skillmonkey can do, or a character that has a primary specialty of Stealth. expecially considering Stealth means either blending in or not being detected.

4: No, that Saying doesnt apply, as the entire existance of that statement is also the reason why advancing electronics to the point where the only things that can understand how they work are other electronics is a really bad thing. Engineers and Alchemists are Swashbucklers and Rogues respectively because one fights by acting as an expert stonemason, and the other fights by distraction, sleight of hand, and poison.

5: Rift, again, was a bad MMO with no real impact to the game. A beastmaster mechanically fights like a cross between the Engineer and the Huntsman, because he is willing to get up close, but has more then one pet with him.

6: If we were to compare Sonic's moves to a class, his class would be Cannonball. The Archetype system is based off of instances where there is intended to be co operative group play, which isnt what Sonic does.

7: League of Legends is a game where every PC is either an Arcane Knight, a Bard, or a Caster. The game doesnt represent an RPG anyway because it is a Strategic Team Competive Combat Game where the team mates do better when they dont actually try to play off eachother.

1) There is no such thing as a swashbuckler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler This is a swashbuckler. A swashbuckler is not a class that doesn't fit in.
And also, stealth is not mandatory for a rogue at all. Even the wow rogue talents are subdivided into assassination, subtlety and combat. Subtlety is only one of the features of the rogue.

2) There is no such class as a cannonball...

3) And no, the reason nowadays every class has some sort of combat form is because devs are retarded. They don't understand the concept of role play and cooperative team work. The rogue is supposed to pick locks not going around just stabbing people. It's the fighter's job to fight, the rogue's job to scout and disarm traps.

4) What are you talking about. How does that saying not apply. And you're not making any sense at all regarding advancing electronics because clearly you don't know anything about electronics. Obviously the electrical engineers that developed the electronics would know about it. And quantum mechanics is already studying the idea of teleportation, and there are already flamethrowers that can replicate the mage's fireballs. And physicists are even looking into time travel through wormholes.

5) And yes of course, because one thing makes a bard do anything that's what a bard is. And it clearly makes sense that the lore fits with the mechanics. A singing traveling bard is able to fight an army of millions. Seriously, did you get high before you replied?

6) So how do we figure out if something is a rogue/warrior? Assuming I'm including rangers.

[Alejandro]

1) There is no such thing as a swashbuckler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler This is a swashbuckler. A swashbuckler is not a class that doesn't fit in.
And also, stealth is not mandatory for a rogue at all. Even the wow rogue talents are subdivided into assassination, subtlety and combat. Subtlety is only one of the features of the rogue.

2) There is no such class as a cannonball...

3) And no, the reason nowadays every class has some sort of combat form is because devs are retarded. They don't understand the concept of role play and cooperative team work. The rogue is supposed to pick locks not going around just stabbing people. It's the fighter's job to fight, the rogue's job to scout and disarm traps.

4) What are you talking about. How does that saying not apply. And you're not making any sense at all regarding advancing electronics because clearly you don't know anything about electronics. Obviously the electrical engineers that developed the electronics would know about it. And quantum mechanics is already studying the idea of teleportation, and there are already flamethrowers that can replicate the mage's fireballs. And physicists are even looking into time travel through wormholes.

5) And yes of course, because one thing makes a bard do anything that's what a bard is. And it clearly makes sense that the lore fits with the mechanics. A singing traveling bard is able to fight an army of millions. Seriously, did you get high before you replied?

6) So how do we figure out if something is a rogue/warrior? Assuming I'm including rangers.

Be careful. When you have to resort to personal attacks, like telling someone they don't know anything about electronics (when you have never met the person) or asking someone if they got high before they replied, instead of a constructive answer, you are clearly losing whatever argument you're in.

Also, in regards to #3, I played a character (D&D) who was great at swordplay and picking locks and disabling traps. And sneaking. It just took good character design.

[AquaBlade]

Be careful. When you have to resort to personal attacks, like telling someone they don't know anything about electronics (when you have never met the person) or asking someone if they got high before they replied, instead of a constructive answer, you are clearly losing whatever argument you're in.

Also, in regards to #3, I played a character (D&D) who was great at swordplay and picking locks and disabling traps. And sneaking. It just took good character design.

lol sorry I got carried away. But I honestly doin't understand how the alchemist could be a rogue. I see it as the singed champion in league of legends who seems is labeled as a mage.
Well I guess the reason I dont' see it as a rogue is because I generally think of rogues as physically proficient. And singed and engineer classes seem more like scientists than anything else.
So exactly how would you characterize rogue/warriors classes? Okay, I won't argue about swashbucklers but I would include them in the category with the definition of swashbucklers as agile fighters/swordsmen. Or as described on the wiki page.
Where would an artisan class fit in?
Like a blacksmith, would it be a warrior? Now that I think of it, the phrase any sufficiently advanced technology is equivalent to magic is kind of skewed. Like the blacksmith is the fantasy technological guy making weapons and stuff, but it isn't really magic.

[Alejandro]

You're being far too narrow. Long John Silver, of Treasure Island fame, is a quintessential rogue, yet he must walk with a crutch.

The phrase about advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic you are referring to is one of the three laws quoted from Arthur C Clarke, author of 2001: A Space Odyssey and much, much more. Specifically, he said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." He was simply making the observation that, especially in fiction, something that operates technologically may, depending on the observer, seem so fantastic as to be regarded as magic.

A somewhat stale example would be how Native Americans in fiction are shown reacting to their first experience with a gunpowder weapon. In Robinson Crusoe, the character 'Friday' is so terrified of the protagonist's musket that he offers to worship it as a god. Later, he is taught how it works, and it is no longer magical to him.

[AquaBlade]

oh I see now.
just a few more questions

Basically, I want to relate classes in mmorpgs to classes in games of other genre.
For example, comparing rogues, warriors, clerics, and mages to classes in team fortress 2.
1) What I want to know, is what classes would be able to fit inside the rogue/warrior category? I know that many classes can fit in more than one class.
For example:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...assEquivalents
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...dventurerIsYou
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...aracterClasses
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ghterMageThief
Each of these pages has something slightly different regarding the relationships between the two sets of classes.
2) In addition, what exaclty is magic in the modern context? Is it just technology and science? Which means engineer and alchemist classes would be mages and wouldn't fit inside the rogue/warrior category? Would they be able to fit?
3) As for ranger classes, how come the beastmaster class is also called a ranger? If they rely on pets as their primary source of combat? Don't rangers generally use bows and arrows?
4) Would the guy in charge of mortars or using rocket launcher be able to fit inside the rogue/warrior category?
5) Where would the merchant/artisan/diplomat classes fall in?

thanks.

[Alejandro]

I don't play Team Fortress 2, can't help you there.

Any "class" can be called a rogue, or a warrior. It just depends on your imagination. I have a wizard who has a very good armor class and who can bash his way through a mob of goblins with his staff. To a common person, that's being a warrior. He can also make things disappear, or appear in his pockets, or turn invisible, so you could easily mistake him for a "rogue." Narrow definitions don't work here, sorry.

Magic is defined by the setting in which it is presented. Shadowrun, Mage (WoD) or just a game of D&D in the Masque of the Red Death setting are all great examples of magic being used in a modern setting. Again, stop worrying about categorizing things. Read one or more of those settings and pick something you like.

Ranger is simply a name. You don't have to be so specific. Aragorn is called a ranger, but so is Robin Hood and the Lone Ranger. All are totally different characters with totally different techniques.

Someone using a mortar or rocket launcher, or being a merchant or artisan, could be anything. Again, you can't neatly categorize this stuff, at least not if you have an imagination. Anyone with basic intelligence can be taught to fire a mortar, ask the US Army. A wizard, fighter, rogue, or cleric could do it. Any of those characters can also run a store or paint a picture. How well they do is up to individual talent.

[AquaBlade]

I don't play Team Fortress 2, can't help you there.

Any "class" can be called a rogue, or a warrior. It just depends on your imagination. I have a wizard who has a very good armor class and who can bash his way through a mob of goblins with his staff. To a common person, that's being a warrior. He can also make things disappear, or appear in his pockets, or turn invisible, so you could easily mistake him for a "rogue." Narrow definitions don't work here, sorry.

Magic is defined by the setting in which it is presented. Shadowrun, Mage (WoD) or just a game of D&D in the Masque of the Red Death setting are all great examples of magic being used in a modern setting. Again, stop worrying about categorizing things. Read one or more of those settings and pick something you like.

Ranger is simply a name. You don't have to be so specific. Aragorn is called a ranger, but so is Robin Hood and the Lone Ranger. All are totally different characters with totally different techniques.

Someone using a mortar or rocket launcher, or being a merchant or artisan, could be anything. Again, you can't neatly categorize this stuff, at least not if you have an imagination. Anyone with basic intelligence can be taught to fire a mortar, ask the US Army. A wizard, fighter, rogue, or cleric could do it. Any of those characters can also run a store or paint a picture. How well they do is up to individual talent.

So how do we figure out if something fits the rogue/warrior category?
How do we figure out if something relates to the warrior, mage, rogue? Do we look at if they share enough significant similarities? I can see what you're talking about. After all, we can't say something's a rogue just by seeing that it wears light armor, that's just one of the factors that we use to determine it.
I just want to know how tvtropes does such things by relating such classes.
And also, given that I like the rogue/warrior classes out of the four traditional archetypes, would that mean that I basically like everything in the non-magical archetype?

[Alejandro]

TVtropes is a website for entertainment purposes. There's no special reasoning in how they define anything, other than humor.

You like whatever you like. You can't get other people to define what you like for you, unless you are a shallow or easily manipulated person.

[AquaBlade]

TVtropes is a website for entertainment purposes. There's no special reasoning in how they define anything, other than humor.

You like whatever you like. You can't get other people to define what you like for you, unless you are a shallow or easily manipulated person.

So how do we figure out if something fits the rogue/warrior category?
How do we figure out if something relates to the warrior, mage, rogue? Do we look at if they share enough significant similarities? I can see what you're talking about. After all, we can't say something's a rogue just by seeing that it wears light armor, that's just one of the factors that we use to determine it.

Like what should I look at specifically? Do I figure out if they share enough significant similarities? What do you think about the lancer class from valkyria chronicles? Or merchant/artisan/engineer classes?

[Alejandro]

Never heard of valkyria chronicles. I already told you how anyone of any class can be a merchant or artisan.

How you decide what a warrior or rogue is to you, is up to you. I have given you some good literature examples. The rest is not something other people can tell you, because we are discussing opinions. Sorry.

[AquaBlade]

so there is no definitive answer to whether something is a warrior or a rogue? Why not? If we compare the traits and attributes and see if there's enough significant similarities why can't we.
Well within the context of non-magic archetypes what isn't a warrior/rogue?

[Alejandro]

You've got six pages of good thoughts here, but you're just asking the same question again and again. Sorry, not going to feed the troll anymore. :smallsmile:

[AquaBlade]

You've got six pages of good thoughts here, but you're just asking the same question again and again. Sorry, not going to feed the troll anymore. :smallsmile:

No but I just want to know how you relate them. People have been doing that for 6 pages like you said. Why are you saying it's not possible. We've been doing this the whole time....

[Wardog]

No but I just want to know how you relate them. People have been doing that for 6 pages like you said. Why are you saying it's not possible. We've been doing this the whole time....

Which "you" do you mean?

I've described how I relate them.
Alejandro described how he (slightly differently) relates them.
Toapat has described another slightly different scheme.
TVTropes describes yet another (reached by the consensus of multiple errors).
You have presented your own opinions.

These aren't hard facts that everyone can measure scientifically and get the same answer as everyone else. They are opinions, based on what we think are the significant patterns found in games and literature that other people have created. There is no hard and fast answer.

If you want to know how the creators of Rifts, or D&D, or WoW or Dragon Age, or Team Fortress, or Morrowind assigned their class roles, you'll have to ask them. Otherwise, if you want a general guide just take my (or Alejandro's, or Toapat's) rules. Or go with your own concept. All are valid, and none are wrong.


(And that's all I'm going to say on the subject, because I'm going to be offline for the next week).

[AquaBlade]

Which "you" do you mean?

I've described how I relate them.
Alejandro described how he (slightly differently) relates them.
Toapat has described another slightly different scheme.
TVTropes describes yet another (reached by the consensus of multiple errors).
You have presented your own opinions.

These aren't hard facts that everyone can measure scientifically and get the same answer as everyone else. They are opinions, based on what we think are the significant patterns found in games and literature that other people have created. There is no hard and fast answer.

If you want to know how the creators of Rifts, or D&D, or WoW or Dragon Age, or Team Fortress, or Morrowind assigned their class roles, you'll have to ask them. Otherwise, if you want a general guide just take my (or Alejandro's, or Toapat's) rules. Or go with your own concept. All are valid, and none are wrong.


(And that's all I'm going to say on the subject, because I'm going to be offline for the next week).

I get it. So since everyone has a different view on the topic. If I combine all those views and consolidate everyone's opinion on what can fit in the rogue/warrior category, that means that what no one thinks can fit I can just throw out?

[AquaBlade]

by the way I was reading on character classes from dnd. Based on what it said, I think that, all the classes I've been mentioning that I like all have the martial power source. Would that be the best classification for me?

[toapat]

by the way I was reading on character classes from dnd. Based on what it said, I think that, all the classes I've been mentioning that I like all have the martial power source. Would that be the best classification for me?

no, because that doesnt say anything about that. the classes from the Book of Nine Swords include 2 Fighter types and a Swashbuckler, who could alternatively be a Rogue.

What defines each category is what you choose, and as has been said, TVtropes is only accurate to the most wrong error (TF2 is wrong because the however many classes it has do not follow the same Archetypes as say, DnD)
4th ed? all of the classes with martial type fall under fighter, rogue, or swashbuckler because it is specifically mundane combat.

The Archetypes i Defined are those as typically followed by RPGs, which is to reiterate:
Fighter: Can take a Hit well
Rogue: Sneaky and do other things
Swashbuckler: Fight in a unique way
Caster: Fight with non-mundane power that you would never be able to withstand.
Support: Help the party out through primarily non-combat means.

DnD specific archetype:
God: Can do everything.

[AquaBlade]

no, because that doesnt say anything about that. the classes from the Book of Nine Swords include 2 Fighter types and a Swashbuckler, who could alternatively be a Rogue.

What defines each category is what you choose, and as has been said, TVtropes is only accurate to the most wrong error (TF2 is wrong because the however many classes it has do not follow the same Archetypes as say, DnD)
4th ed? all of the classes with martial type fall under fighter, rogue, or swashbuckler because it is specifically mundane combat.

The Archetypes i Defined are those as typically followed by RPGs, which is to reiterate:
Fighter: Can take a Hit well
Rogue: Sneaky and do other things
Swashbuckler: Fight in a unique way
Caster: Fight with non-mundane power that you would never be able to withstand.
Support: Help the party out through primarily non-combat means.

DnD specific archetype:
God: Can do everything.

well from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
the power sources from the warrior warden archer rogue are all martial. I'm trying to find a way to consolidate what I like in terms that are constant through everyone.
now that I know that the role is actually determined by the abilities and stats. Is that what actually defines an archetype? So, now, how can we definitively classify things into archetypes? Would it be easier if we just focused on figuring out whether something would fit in the rogue/warrior archetype since this would avoid the confusion with hybrids and we can just put the hybrids which share warrior/rogue traits into the category? Can we just say that rogues/warriors are physical combatants and classify everything that's non-magical as warrior/rogue? How can we definitively point out if something fits in that category? I know we should look at the combat and abilities and statistics, but besides combat, for example, some classes just play utility roles like thieves or treasure hunters. Do we need to care about what role they play at all since they can be anything? Where do the crunch and the fluff come into play? Like, if we look at the tf2 classes, which ones can we classify as a rogue/warrior? I'm having trouble figuring out whether the engineer class should be more of a rogue or a mage.

[Daremonai]

I'm trying to find a way to consolidate what I like in terms that are constant through everyone. <snip> So, now, how can we definitively classify things into archetypes?

If you've learned nothing else from this thread, you should have noticed that there are no terms constant through everyone. Additionally, definitively classifying nebulous ideas into archetypes is a thing that is just not going to happen. These archetypes have been around for centuries and still remain ill-defined because they are ambiguous. Even if you do declare concrete boundaries between "rogue" and "fighter", it won't help you find a MMO class that you'll enjoy playing - for that, you'd still need to actually try them. If you find this interesting as an intellectual exercise then good for you, but in the end it's still all academic.

[Alejandro]

no, because that doesnt say anything about that. the classes from the Book of Nine Swords include 2 Fighter types and a Swashbuckler, who could alternatively be a Rogue.

What defines each category is what you choose, and as has been said, TVtropes is only accurate to the most wrong error (TF2 is wrong because the however many classes it has do not follow the same Archetypes as say, DnD)
4th ed? all of the classes with martial type fall under fighter, rogue, or swashbuckler because it is specifically mundane combat.

The Archetypes i Defined are those as typically followed by RPGs, which is to reiterate:
Fighter: Can take a Hit well
Rogue: Sneaky and do other things
Swashbuckler: Fight in a unique way
Caster: Fight with non-mundane power that you would never be able to withstand.
Support: Help the party out through primarily non-combat means.

DnD specific archetype:
God: Can do everything.

To be fair, the "Swashbuckler: fight in a unique way" definition only works from our current viewpoint. There was a time in the real world when what we think of as swashbuckling was just "fighter." :) Just like to someone in feudal Japan, a samurai isn't unique, that is their culture's warrior. The uniqueness comes when an outsider compares it to themselves.

[endoperez]

AquaBlade

A while ago, you mentioned Singed of League of Legends as an example of alchemist and mage. Singed is tagged as "fighter" and "melee" in the game store. He is not tagged "mage" - or "tank" or "pusher"!

So, for one thing, the tags in LoL are a bit flawed.

League of Legends defines mage as someone who builds Ability Power items for damage. This includes Rumble, who is an engineer. It also includes Diana, who has awesome log-in music, and is defined as mage AND fighter AND assassin AND jungler. So if you argue anything using LoL terminology, other people can use LoL terminology to prove that a character/class can belong into several different archetypes at once.

[toapat]

To be fair, the "Swashbuckler: fight in a unique way" definition only works from our current viewpoint. There was a time in the real world when what we think of as swashbuckling was just "fighter." :) Just like to someone in feudal Japan, a samurai isn't unique, that is their culture's warrior. The uniqueness comes when an outsider compares it to themselves.

the term was chosen because it is a recognizable idea, but one clearly different from a Fighter or Rogue, In storytelling terms, the Swashbuckler is going to be an Author Espy if the Author Espy is not a Wizard.

basically, to compare in movies:

Fighter: Conan, anyone you see fighting in Kingdom of Heaven.
Rogue: Zartan, GIJOE: The Rise of Cobra.
Swashbuckler: Erol Flynn
Caster: Gandalf, film 6 Dumbledor
Support: Anyone who takes the role of general, the battlefield medics.

[AquaBlade]

I still don't agree to the existence of the swashbuckler class since it either falls under warrior or rogue. And I mean the actual definition of a swashbuckler which is a drunk swordsman lol.
1) Would it be possible to classify things such as soccer players as archetypes. or cole from infamous?
2) Would everything non-magical be able to fit into the rogue/warrior category? Because that would make it a whole lot easier lol.
3) Which raises the question of what exactly is magic lol. Like people have said that the flamethrower is more of a mage because it shoots fire like a mage shooting fireballs. When would something be called magic?
the reason I thought that snipers would also be able to fit as a rogue/warrior archetype is because the fluff dictates that they are trained soldiers while mages are just scholars. And also, since like you said roles do not dictate the archetype, I thought that the sniper's role as a glass cannon/nuker wouldn't instantly make him a mage. And he doesn't really use magic either. Moreover, his main method of combat seems to be stealth which seems like a rogue thing. I mean, when I think of a guy stealthily hiding in the bushes with his sniper rifle, I think of the rogue first lol.
4) Would it be possible to classify the classes at the bottom of the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class
under non-role playing games. It's mainly these types of characters that confuse me lol.
like the engineers in tf2 or in class-based shooters. How are they warriors when they mostly play support roles repairing things.
5) But as with fluff and crunch, doesn't the fluff play a little part as well? without fluff we wouldn't be able to decide whether a mage casting invisibility spells would be a mage or a rogue since its the fluff that dictates that part no? Its the crunch that says that the mage is playing the role of the rogue but the fluff says that its just a mage in reality. And also, when would a mage be a rogue hybrid as well?
http://mmohuts.com/editorials/mmo-cl...laying-a-rogue
However, in other cases such as ratchet and clank, I get confused too because by fluff ratchet is an engineer. However, then he's seen to be dancing around with his wide variety of guns shooting at enemies lol.
Is this article inaccurate? It suggested rogues as stealthy mages casting fireballs from the shadows lol.

[toapat]

I still don't agree to the existence of the swashbuckler class since it either falls under warrior or rogue. And I mean the actual definition of a swashbuckler which is a drunk swordsman lol.
1) Would it be possible to classify things such as soccer players as archetypes. or cole from infamous?
2) Would everything non-magical be able to fit into the rogue/warrior category? Because that would make it a whole lot easier lol.
3) Which raises the question of what exactly is magic lol. Like people have said that the flamethrower is more of a mage because it shoots fire like a mage shooting fireballs. When would something be called magic?
the reason I thought that snipers would also be able to fit as a rogue/warrior archetype is because the fluff dictates that they are trained soldiers while mages are just scholars. And also, since like you said roles do not dictate the archetype, I thought that the sniper's role as a glass cannon/nuker wouldn't instantly make him a mage. And he doesn't really use magic either. Moreover, his main method of combat seems to be stealth which seems like a rogue thing. I mean, when I think of a guy stealthily hiding in the bushes with his sniper rifle, I think of the rogue first lol.
4) Would it be possible to classify the classes at the bottom of the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class
under non-role playing games. It's mainly these types of characters that confuse me lol.
like the engineers in tf2 or in class-based shooters. How are they warriors when they mostly play support roles repairing things.
5) But as with fluff and crunch, doesn't the fluff play a little part as well? without fluff we wouldn't be able to decide whether a mage casting invisibility spells would be a mage or a rogue since its the fluff that dictates that part no? Its the crunch that says that the mage is playing the role of the rogue but the fluff says that its just a mage in reality. And also, when would a mage be a rogue hybrid as well?
http://mmohuts.com/editorials/mmo-cl...laying-a-rogue
However, in other cases such as ratchet and clank, I get confused too because by fluff ratchet is an engineer. However, then he's seen to be dancing around with his wide variety of guns shooting at enemies lol.
Is this article inaccurate? It suggested rogues as stealthy mages casting fireballs from the shadows lol.

0: Imagine how someone would competently fight with a longsword, no armor, and a blood alcohol level of .4. That DOES NOT make me envision a Rogue or a Fighter, expecially considering the Fighter Archetype's Design Philosophy.
1: Professional highly athletic *****, Magic Superhero
2: no, because MLRS, Destroyers, and Tanks all fit the bill of Caster
3: Magic is either a force that only highly trained or physically attuned beings can pick up, while Psionics is something that is genetic. What disqualifies science as a system of spellcasting is that Chemistry and Physics are very simple things given much more huge explanations. (IE, matter is basically sound traveling through Cosmic soup.(Explosives are highly stable assemblies of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen)) Hacking comes closer to spellcasting, but will never qualify because of what hacking is.
4: That entire section is people being morons. Those are Buildouts, not Classes. The thing that makes a buildout a buildout is that a Buildout is a something you can change actively. all of the classes there are subtypes of Fighter and Support, except for the scout and the spy, who are respectively a Swashbuckler and a Rogue.
5: No, Fluff is almost entirely superfluous. A paladin is a type, as is an Arcane Knight. A Paladin is defined as being a melee combatant with self sufficiency, an Arcane Knight is someone with good survivability and offensive spellcasting, but less likely to have self sufficiency. In DnD 3.5, we have Paladin types using every existing magic system in the game except for Arcane casting, and we have Arcane Knights using a significant portion of the varieties of spellcasting.

[AquaBlade]

0: Imagine how someone would competently fight with a longsword, no armor, and a blood alcohol level of .4. That DOES NOT make me envision a Rogue or a Fighter, expecially considering the Fighter Archetype's Design Philosophy.
1: Professional highly athletic *****, Magic Superhero
2: no, because MLRS, Destroyers, and Tanks all fit the bill of Caster
3: Magic is either a force that only highly trained or physically attuned beings can pick up, while Psionics is something that is genetic. What disqualifies science as a system of spellcasting is that Chemistry and Physics are very simple things given much more huge explanations. (IE, matter is basically sound traveling through Cosmic soup.(Explosives are highly stable assemblies of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen)) Hacking comes closer to spellcasting, but will never qualify because of what hacking is.
4: That entire section is people being morons. Those are Buildouts, not Classes. The thing that makes a buildout a buildout is that a Buildout is a something you can change actively. all of the classes there are subtypes of Fighter and Support, except for the scout and the spy, who are respectively a Swashbuckler and a Rogue.
5: No, Fluff is almost entirely superfluous. A paladin is a type, as is an Arcane Knight. A Paladin is defined as being a melee combatant with self sufficiency, an Arcane Knight is someone with good survivability and offensive spellcasting, but less likely to have self sufficiency. In DnD 3.5, we have Paladin types using every existing magic system in the game except for Arcane casting, and we have Arcane Knights using a significant portion of the varieties of spellcasting.

thanks
1) but without fluff how would you know the difference between a rogue and a mage casting invisibility spells and moving around stealthy shooting fireballs. Is that mmohut link I posted previously inaccurate in suggesting that rogues could be stealthy mages firing off fireballs? http://mmohuts.com/editorials/mmo-classes-playing-a-rogue
2) Wouldn't the athletic guys be more of rogues, fighters? After all they are physically trained and soccer players are dexterous like the rogue.
3) Well when I think of swashbucklers i think of the pirate class from maplestory. Just to me it seems more of a warrior than it being its own class.
4) Well, tbh, I think that tanks can be warriors as well. In a fps setting they have the highest defense, and moreover I don't think the role necessarily defines the archetype. A specific archetype can have more than one role.
5) So is there a definitive way in classsifying something as a rogue/warrior? And fine I include swashbucklers if we're talking about drunk swordsmen and pirates lol. In regards with tf2, which ones would fit in that category? Since this is a very general category, I guess it'd be better to ask what doesn't fit in the category lol.

Btw, I'm having the same discussion on another forum :
http://www.onrpg.com/boards/showthread.php?209178-Quick-questions-regarding-generic-mmorpg-classes
Is this guy basically saying the same thing as you are?
Lol sorry, but I find it easier to agree with him. But I don't know which information is actually accurate and how something can actually be deemed to be correct regarding topics like this.

[Alejandro]

the term was chosen because it is a recognizable idea, but one clearly different from a Fighter or Rogue, In storytelling terms, the Swashbuckler is going to be an Author Espy if the Author Espy is not a Wizard.

basically, to compare in movies:

Fighter: Conan, anyone you see fighting in Kingdom of Heaven.
Rogue: Zartan, GIJOE: The Rise of Cobra.
Swashbuckler: Erol Flynn
Caster: Gandalf, film 6 Dumbledor
Support: Anyone who takes the role of general, the battlefield medics.

At least you chose Flynn as the quintessential example. Good taste. :)

[endoperez]

Fighter: Conan, anyone you see fighting in Kingdom of Heaven.
Rogue: Zartan, GIJOE: The Rise of Cobra.
Swashbuckler: Erol Flynn
Caster: Gandalf, film 6 Dumbledor
Support: Anyone who takes the role of general, the battlefield medics.


Conan, the barbarian, was also a thief, a rogue, a general and a king. Sometimes he fought while drunk (swashbuckler?). If a character can take on the roles of several archetypes, in a story, why act as if the archetypes are immutable?

Gandalf is a healer (to Theoden), and a leader, and an inspirer of men. He carries a sword. I'd wager he uses his sword more often than he casts spells. I don't think he can belong into the caster archetype. Aragorn was a fighter, a ranger, a healer ("king's hands"), a leader, a general, a king. How can he be all of these things at once? How can Gandalf, Theoden and Aragorn all have been leaders of men, when one is a caster, another a support, and third a fighter, according to some definitions?


Here's how I'd solve these problems.

The Native American archetype of a horseman, archer, noble savage, a hunter who knows the wilderness... is he a rogue or a swashbuckler? In my opinion, it is a specific, unique archetype, neither rogue nor a swashbuckler. And in my opinion, swashbuckler is another, similar, unique archetype, a construct of a specific genre and time and location and rare outside it. Unless we're discussing a Reneissance or Three Musketeers or pirate world, swashbuckler shouldn't exist as a unique archetype. Rogues or warriors are good enough.

If different worlds have different unique archetypes, wouldn't it make sense that their basic archetypes differ as well. Perhaps the hobbit archetype of one world is that of a thieving rogue (kender of Dragonlance), while they're jungle cannibals in another (Athas). Perhaps the warrior of one world wears gothic plate, while the warrior of another only has a chain (mail) cuirass, a helmet and a wooden shield.

If different worlds have different archetypes, a consensus can only be reached when everyone involved is speaking of the same world.


In the world of Conan, the archetypical warrior overlaps with the skills and greed of the archetypical rogue. This warrior doesn't care about chivalry, at least in a fight, and has neither armor nor sense of property that would prevent him from sneaking into a wizard's tower and leaving with some extra treasure.

In the Middle-Earth, great men become leaders of others. During the Scouring, Frodo and his friends act in a manner that makes hostile forces unsure and allies eager. The same is true with Gandalf, with Theoden, with Aragorn... In Middle-Earth, leading an army is not specific to any role.

In ME, being a warrior means being fearless and brave, driving back enemies, causing fear. It does not necessarily make one foolish, but the risk exists. This makes Aragorn and rangers warriors, since they drive the scary things away from civilization and into the wilderness. However, the riders of Rohan are also warriors. The stealth aspect isn't important.

Being a wizard means being wise, guiding the way, finding the answers. It's about knowledge, information and foresight, not fireballs. There is no caster archetype in the books IMO.

In generic D&D-land, a rogue could be a skilled, sneak-attacking, agile combatant; or a skilled, stealthy trap disarmer and mechanist who can't really fight. Depends on the group. The skills are usually constant: the rogue is a skill monkey. Fighting ability varies.

Fighter, on the other hand, is archetypically a good and strong fighter that's durable and hard to take down. Mechanically, it depends.

Fighter/rogue, which I wouldn't call a swashbuckler, can fight but doesn't have the rogue's mad skills or the fighter's impressive durability. I don't know what you suppose he has instead. Mobility? More damage? The thing is, in a system like an MMO where trap skills are downplayed, all rogues can fight and are fighter/rogues.

A caster in D&D-land is more powerful than casters almost anywhere else, even anime. However, they're usually limited to local, impressive effects with duration measured in hours, with items and spells tied to a person or a place being the more permanent options.
A caster in D&D-land doesn't usually create an illusion of a great armada outside every coastal port of an enemy nation. A caster in D&D-land doesn't usually outfit an army with ten thousand pairs of good boots and transform the swamp into a well-tiled road for the duration of their march.

A D&D caster can do those things, but the archetype is known for doing something with a direct effect, and for having several interesting choices at his service. A fireball, a banishment, a dismissal, an earthquake, a poisonous fog, a host of summoned angels.

If that's the caster archetype you're arguing about, a magic-user who can turn invisible and uses magic to help enhance his skills isn't a rogue/caster archetype. Since he doesn't have a variety of effects to choose from, he's just a rogue with magical fluff to his stealth abilities.

A rogue/caster archetype would have to be a rogue who can use magic to do things a rogue couldn't usually do. Flying, walking through walls and turning into smoke are similar to his skills, but more powerful. Scrying, mind-reading, mind-control, causing enemies to fall asleep and assuming the form of an animal are things he can't usually do. An invisible rogue is just an extraordinary thief, but a rogue/caster could have actually been the very envelope into which you sealed the military secrets..

[Alejandro]

That was a nicely written and insightful reply. I can pretty much promise you that you will receive a response with basically the same questions again. :)

[toapat]

thanks
1) but without fluff how would you know the difference between a rogue and a mage casting invisibility spells and moving around stealthy shooting fireballs. Is that mmohut link I posted previously inaccurate in suggesting that rogues could be stealthy mages firing off fireballs? http://mmohuts.com/editorials/mmo-classes-playing-a-rogue
2) Wouldn't the athletic guys be more of rogues, fighters? After all they are physically trained and soccer players are dexterous like the rogue.
3) Well when I think of swashbucklers i think of the pirate class from maplestory. Just to me it seems more of a warrior than it being its own class.
4) Well, tbh, I think that tanks can be warriors as well. In a fps setting they have the highest defense, and moreover I don't think the role necessarily defines the archetype. A specific archetype can have more than one role.
5) So is there a definitive way in classsifying something as a rogue/warrior? And fine I include swashbucklers if we're talking about drunk swordsmen and pirates lol. In regards with tf2, which ones would fit in that category? Since this is a very general category, I guess it'd be better to ask what doesn't fit in the category lol.

Btw, I'm having the same discussion on another forum :
http://www.onrpg.com/boards/showthread.php?209178-Quick-questions-regarding-generic-mmorpg-classes
Is this guy basically saying the same thing as you are?
Lol sorry, but I find it easier to agree with him. But I don't know which information is actually accurate and how something can actually be deemed to be correct regarding topics like this.

1: the Rogue is going to be leaving a trail of Vellum and will always be in shadows, the mage is going to shove the fireball down your throat in broad daylight.

2: Athletes dont fit in this discussion, ever. i also said their category would be professional athletic dirtbags.

3: thats because you are looking at a fighter type, not a swashbuckler, watch a Dervish, or Erol Flynn.

4: a 10 lb 1' dart traveling at a mile a second turns a tank into a pipe. That is definitively within caster territory. the only reason the abrams is considered invincible is because the only things it goes up against dont have the kind of penetration power to chip the front armor.

5: yes, Does it fight in a very straightforward, frontal offensive way? Warrior
If it enters frontal combat, does it keel over backwards instantly? Rogue
Does it play an entirely different game, such as dancing with a spinning scythe? Swashbuckler.


Conan, the barbarian, was also a thief, a rogue, a general and a king. Sometimes he fought while drunk (swashbuckler?). If a character can take on the roles of several archetypes, in a story, why act as if the archetypes are immutable?

Gandalf is a healer (to Theoden), and a leader, and an inspirer of men. He carries a sword. I'd wager he uses his sword more often than he casts spells. I don't think he can belong into the caster archetype. Aragorn was a fighter, a ranger, a healer ("king's hands"), a leader, a general, a king. How can he be all of these things at once? How can Gandalf, Theoden and Aragorn all have been leaders of men, when one is a caster, another a support, and third a fighter, according to some definitions?


Here's how I'd solve these problems.

The Native American archetype of a horseman, archer, noble savage, a hunter who knows the wilderness... is he a rogue or a swashbuckler? In my opinion, it is a specific, unique archetype, neither rogue nor a swashbuckler. And in my opinion, swashbuckler is another, similar, unique archetype, a construct of a specific genre and time and location and rare outside it. Unless we're discussing a Reneissance or Three Musketeers or pirate world, swashbuckler shouldn't exist as a unique archetype. Rogues or warriors are good enough.

If different worlds have different unique archetypes, wouldn't it make sense that their basic archetypes differ as well. Perhaps the hobbit archetype of one world is that of a thieving rogue (kender of Dragonlance), while they're jungle cannibals in another (Athas). Perhaps the warrior of one world wears gothic plate, while the warrior of another only has a chain (mail) cuirass, a helmet and a wooden shield.

If different worlds have different archetypes, a consensus can only be reached when everyone involved is speaking of the same world.


In the world of Conan, the archetypical warrior overlaps with the skills and greed of the archetypical rogue. This warrior doesn't care about chivalry, at least in a fight, and has neither armor nor sense of property that would prevent him from sneaking into a wizard's tower and leaving with some extra treasure.

In the Middle-Earth, great men become leaders of others. During the Scouring, Frodo and his friends act in a manner that makes hostile forces unsure and allies eager. The same is true with Gandalf, with Theoden, with Aragorn... In Middle-Earth, leading an army is not specific to any role.

In ME, being a warrior means being fearless and brave, driving back enemies, causing fear. It does not necessarily make one foolish, but the risk exists. This makes Aragorn and rangers warriors, since they drive the scary things away from civilization and into the wilderness. However, the riders of Rohan are also warriors. The stealth aspect isn't important.

Being a wizard means being wise, guiding the way, finding the answers. It's about knowledge, information and foresight, not fireballs. There is no caster archetype in the books IMO.

In generic D&D-land, a rogue could be a skilled, sneak-attacking, agile combatant; or a skilled, stealthy trap disarmer and mechanist who can't really fight. Depends on the group. The skills are usually constant: the rogue is a skill monkey. Fighting ability varies.

Fighter, on the other hand, is archetypically a good and strong fighter that's durable and hard to take down. Mechanically, it depends.

Fighter/rogue, which I wouldn't call a swashbuckler, can fight but doesn't have the rogue's mad skills or the fighter's impressive durability. I don't know what you suppose he has instead. Mobility? More damage? The thing is, in a system like an MMO where trap skills are downplayed, all rogues can fight and are fighter/rogues.

A caster in D&D-land is more powerful than casters almost anywhere else, even anime. However, they're usually limited to local, impressive effects with duration measured in hours, with items and spells tied to a person or a place being the more permanent options.
A caster in D&D-land doesn't usually create an illusion of a great armada outside every coastal port of an enemy nation. A caster in D&D-land doesn't usually outfit an army with ten thousand pairs of good boots and transform the swamp into a well-tiled road for the duration of their march.

A D&D caster can do those things, but the archetype is known for doing something with a direct effect, and for having several interesting choices at his service. A fireball, a banishment, a dismissal, an earthquake, a poisonous fog, a host of summoned angels.

If that's the caster archetype you're arguing about, a magic-user who can turn invisible and uses magic to help enhance his skills isn't a rogue/caster archetype. Since he doesn't have a variety of effects to choose from, he's just a rogue with magical fluff to his stealth abilities.

A rogue/caster archetype would have to be a rogue who can use magic to do things a rogue couldn't usually do. Flying, walking through walls and turning into smoke are similar to his skills, but more powerful. Scrying, mind-reading, mind-control, causing enemies to fall asleep and assuming the form of an animal are things he can't usually do. An invisible rogue is just an extraordinary thief, but a rogue/caster could have actually been the very envelope into which you sealed the military secrets..

The conan people think of is a warrior first, he is an Everyhero.

Gandalf is still filling the role of caster, he just uses a sword because he is a good RPer and prefers not to overshadow his team. (The caster in gameplay is a nuker or Deus Ex Machina, in stories, they are more like the smart guy or only sane man)

The Ranger is a subtype of Rogue, and the most common instance, its just that with a few tweeks, it becomes a warrior (lower stealth emphasis, more health), a Swashbuckler (Beastmaster), or even a support (cant think of something for here).

I never said though that General (Military) is specific to any archetype, hell i defined the Fighter as big and tough first, almost everything else can be added into them in small bits without overwhelming that fact.

Im not calling Dexfighter Swashbuckler, because that is a Subtype of the Rogue who has traded out a bit of skillchimp for combat capacity.

I annotated my list to include God from DnD, IE, where T1+2 sit, and pointed out that this is not a typical situation.

Greater Invisibility isnt a class feature, it is an ability that opens more options to the caster, such as fall back and recharge, or covering fire.

the Arcane Trickster and 3.5 Assassin are casters. one is a support character (taking the skills of a Rogue, and the flexibility of a caster), and a rogue respectively.

[AquaBlade]

1: the Rogue is going to be leaving a trail of Vellum and will always be in shadows, the mage is going to shove the fireball down your throat in broad daylight.

2: Athletes dont fit in this discussion, ever. i also said their category would be professional athletic dirtbags.

3: thats because you are looking at a fighter type, not a swashbuckler, watch a Dervish, or Erol Flynn.

4: a 10 lb 1' dart traveling at a mile a second turns a tank into a pipe. That is definitively within caster territory. the only reason the abrams is considered invincible is because the only things it goes up against dont have the kind of penetration power to chip the front armor.

5: yes, Does it fight in a very straightforward, frontal offensive way? Warrior
If it enters frontal combat, does it keel over backwards instantly? Rogue
Does it play an entirely different game, such as dancing with a spinning scythe? Swashbuckler.



The conan people think of is a warrior first, he is an Everyhero.

Gandalf is still filling the role of caster, he just uses a sword because he is a good RPer and prefers not to overshadow his team. (The caster in gameplay is a nuker or Deus Ex Machina, in stories, they are more like the smart guy or only sane man)

The Ranger is a subtype of Rogue, and the most common instance, its just that with a few tweeks, it becomes a warrior (lower stealth emphasis, more health), a Swashbuckler (Beastmaster), or even a support (cant think of something for here).

I never said though that General (Military) is specific to any archetype, hell i defined the Fighter as big and tough first, almost everything else can be added into them in small bits without overwhelming that fact.

Im not calling Dexfighter Swashbuckler, because that is a Subtype of the Rogue who has traded out a bit of skillchimp for combat capacity.

I annotated my list to include God from DnD, IE, where T1+2 sit, and pointed out that this is not a typical situation.

Greater Invisibility isnt a class feature, it is an ability that opens more options to the caster, such as fall back and recharge, or covering fire.

the Arcane Trickster and 3.5 Assassin are casters. one is a support character (taking the skills of a Rogue, and the flexibility of a caster), and a rogue respectively.

thanks.
1) Well, basically I like physical fighters whether it's a spinning scythe guy or a unarmed shaolin monk or a fully clad swordsman. However, I also like rogues that don't necessarily have combat roles such as pure thieves. What could this mean?
2) What do you think of the suggestions of rogues in that mmohut site? Are they accurate since they said that a rogue could be a stealthy mage firing rfireballs from the shadows.
3) Do you agree with the answers in this discussion so far? Is he basically saying the same thing as you?
http://www.onrpg.com/boards/showthread.php?209178-Quick-questions-regarding-generic-mmorpg-classes/page2
4) Is it even possible to do a paper regarding rogue/warrior archetypes? I'm still of the fact that the only 4 traditional archetypes are rogues warriors clerics and mages like in the original D&D lol.

[toapat]

thanks.
1) Well, basically I like physical fighters whether it's a spinning scythe guy or a unarmed shaolin monk or a fully clad swordsman. However, I also like rogues that don't necessarily have combat roles such as pure thieves. What could this mean?
2) What do you think of the suggestions of rogues in that mmohut site? Are they accurate since they said that a rogue could be a stealthy mage firing rfireballs from the shadows.
3) Do you agree with the answers in this discussion so far? Is he basically saying the same thing as you?
http://www.onrpg.com/boards/showthread.php?209178-Quick-questions-regarding-generic-mmorpg-classes/page2
4) Is it even possible to do a paper regarding rogue/warrior archetypes? I'm still of the fact that the only 4 traditional archetypes are rogues warriors clerics and mages like in the original D&D lol.

1: you like melee, you like characters that let you think.
2: no, they are not. A Mage using invisibility magic is not going to be attempting to go undetected, because he is confident that he wont be noticed, a Rogue is going to be doing alot of work at stealth, is going to attempt missdirection, and try not to do anything noticeable.
3: he is singing a similar tune, but in different key and tempo.
4: If you ignore the complete logical falacy that is required to lump all melee combatants into the fighter Archetype (which is completely stupid, warriors fight differently from paladins, who fight differently from dervish, ranger, and assassin), then the roles are Meatshield, Chimp, Glass Cannon, and Support.
if you want to actually get any idea of what you are looking at with a class, you need:

{table]Class|First Role|Second Role
Fighter|Melee|Survivable
Rogue|Stealth|Skillmonkey
Swashbuckler|Combat|Quarky
Caster|Firepower|Monkeywrench
Support|Healer|Buffer[/table]

at the least. you can pull binder, engineer, beastmaster, ranger, huntsman/artificer, and trapper out and make the archer archetype, although that isnt really useful because that just brings out the problem that you dont know how each one plays differently.

[endoperez]

The conan people think of is a warrior first, he is an Everyhero.

Gandalf is still filling the role of caster, he just uses a sword because he is a good RPer and prefers not to overshadow his team. (The caster in gameplay is a nuker or Deus Ex Machina, in stories, they are more like the smart guy or only sane man)

The Ranger is a subtype of Rogue, and the most common instance, its just that with a few tweeks, it becomes a warrior (lower stealth emphasis, more health), a Swashbuckler (Beastmaster), or even a support (cant think of something for here).

I never said though that General (Military) is specific to any archetype, hell i defined the Fighter as big and tough first, almost everything else can be added into them in small bits without overwhelming that fact.

Im not calling Dexfighter Swashbuckler, because that is a Subtype of the Rogue who has traded out a bit of skillchimp for combat capacity.

I annotated my list to include God from DnD, IE, where T1+2 sit, and pointed out that this is not a typical situation.

Greater Invisibility isnt a class feature, it is an ability that opens more options to the caster, such as fall back and recharge, or covering fire.

the Arcane Trickster and 3.5 Assassin are casters. one is a support character (taking the skills of a Rogue, and the flexibility of a caster), and a rogue respectively.

You ignored my main argument. You're only arguing against specific points.

I said that the archetypes are different in different worlds. "Fighter" in the world of Conan is different from "Fighter" in, let's say, Eberron. "Caster" in D&D is different from "Caster" in World of Warcraft. "Wizard" in Middle-Earth is different from "Wizard" in World of Oz. " That was the main claim of my post. Do you agree or disagree?

Here I go through some of the things you provided and try to argue against them. I don't consider this important for the main issue, so these are spoilered. Please answer the bolded question above before arguing against these.

"Gandalf is still filling the role of caster, he just uses a sword because he is a good RPer and prefers not to overshadow his team."

You can't argue it like this! Claiming that a character in fiction bas a player is just wrong! :smallmad: I mean, I could just as well claim that Sherlock Holmes is actually a sorcerer, he just doesn't use magic because he doesn't want to be found out by Watson, who is an inquisitor. It is NOT established in the series!
You could say that Gandalf is a maia who doesn't use his full power. If you meant that, say so.


"The caster in gameplay is a nuker or Deus Ex Machina, in stories, they are more like the smart guy or only sane man."

A "Deus ex Machina" is a term that is usually used when a problem is resolved suddenly with something that was not established before. Ability to cast spells is usually established early on, so having a character resolve a situation using spells is not a deus ex machina.
So if a character specializes in casting specific types of spells, and isn't a nuker, he isn't a caster according to your definition there. A necromancer isn't a caster according to you, since he raises skeletons instead of nuking enemies directly.


"I never said though that General (Military) is specific to any archetype"

You actually said "Support: Anyone who takes the role of general, the battlefield medics"

"Im not calling Dexfighter Swashbuckler, because that is a Subtype of the Rogue who has traded out a bit of skillchimp for combat capacity."

According to you, the primary role of a swashbuckler is combat capacity, and the secondary role is "quarky" - being stylish. A dexfighter who dresses well fits your definition of swashbuckler. What makes dexfighter different from your swashbuckler?

[toapat]

*god this post is organized like crap*

1: I dont agree, because you are ignoring the fact that Archetypes do not care about the minute details, that is execution, and defines the types that are within each archetype.

2: Gandalf was written as in the background moreso because having one guy solve every battle with a wave of his hand, inbetween halflings being halflings, would not be a good story.

3: you ignore the fact that DnD wizards can easily just end encounter after encounter each day, regardless of difficulty, with only a few contrived spells like sleep and flesh to stone. They are pulling Deus Ex Machina, just not with the same execution as normally in modern fiction.

4: Being a General, and having a character who is clearly of the Martial class (IE, this guy is only a general) is different, anyone can take lead with enough intelligence. the reason why a Mechanical general is a support character is because they are given abilities to help out several thousand units at a time.

5: No. the reason why swashbuckler is a pain to define, is because they are a very hard case to imagine. the only class i can consistantly think of actually being one, is a Whirling dervish (sweeping strikes, deceptive armor, constantly moving). The dexfighter is a niche granted to rogues when they need to be viable to combat.

[endoperez]

1: I dont agree, because you are ignoring the fact that Archetypes do not care about the minute details, that is execution, and defines the types that are within each archetype.

2: Gandalf was written as in the background moreso because having one guy solve every battle with a wave of his hand, inbetween halflings being halflings, would not be a good story.

3: you ignore the fact that DnD wizards can easily just end encounter after encounter each day, regardless of difficulty, with only a few contrived spells like sleep and flesh to stone. They are pulling Deus Ex Machina, just not with the same execution as normally in modern fiction.

4: Being a General, and having a character who is clearly of the Martial class (IE, this guy is only a general) is different, anyone can take lead with enough intelligence. the reason why a Mechanical general is a support character is because they are given abilities to help out several thousand units at a time.

5: No. the reason why swashbuckler is a pain to define, is because they are a very hard case to imagine. the only class i can consistantly think of actually being one, is a Whirling dervish (sweeping strikes, deceptive armor, constantly moving). The dexfighter is a niche granted to rogues when they need to be viable to combat.

1. So... archetypes are same in all worlds. In other words, you're using something like TvTropes tropes?

Well, in that case wizards like Gandalf or Harry Potter won't fit into the Caster archetype. Necromancers won't fit into the Caster archetypes. Healer-type white mages don't fit into the Caster archetype. Aragorn, a ranger, is not a Ranger archetype (which is a rogue subcategory), but a Fighter archetype.

This is an unavoidable result of using consistent terminology over a series of works that are very different from each other. Wizard of Oz is not Wizard of Middle-Earth is not Wizard Merlin is not Wizard class of D&D. Some wizards are not casters, some soldiers are not fighters, some thieves are not rogues, etc.

2. Yes, that is true. However, since Gandalf does not nuke enemies, he isn't a Caster as you define it.

3. Deus ex Machina has a specific definition. It does NOT mean powerful, unbeatable, invincible. Superman is pretty much unbeatable. It isn't DEM. He isn't a caster. You don't need to be a caster to be unbeatable and overpowered. Casters don't have to be powerful.

Also, D&D wizards specifically run out of juice, unlike some other spellcasters, so ending "encounter after encounter each day" is a bit dubious.

4. Sorry, I must have missed that. I read general, and assumed it meant general.

5. Really? I have no trouble imagining a swashbuckler. A specific type of pirate tale, a Three Musketeers story, a cocky young noblewoman running away from home, most Eastern kung fu movies... Is there a reason you are limiting yourself to D&D rules?


edit: I found your definition of Swashbuckler from a few pages back. It has combat ability, it isn't stealthy, it isn't tough and durable like a warrior, but it has an alternate method of staying alive, such as an AC bonus from dexterity or something.

I also found out that you define summoners (necromancers) as casters of another type. However, shouldn't they be the support type, since they're generals able to lead huge numbers of (undead) soldiers?

[AquaBlade]

1: you like melee, you like characters that let you think.
2: no, they are not. A Mage using invisibility magic is not going to be attempting to go undetected, because he is confident that he wont be noticed, a Rogue is going to be doing alot of work at stealth, is going to attempt missdirection, and try not to do anything noticeable.
3: he is singing a similar tune, but in different key and tempo.
4: If you ignore the complete logical falacy that is required to lump all melee combatants into the fighter Archetype (which is completely stupid, warriors fight differently from paladins, who fight differently from dervish, ranger, and assassin), then the roles are Meatshield, Chimp, Glass Cannon, and Support.
if you want to actually get any idea of what you are looking at with a class, you need:

{table]Class|First Role|Second Role
Fighter|Melee|Survivable
Rogue|Stealth|Skillmonkey
Swashbuckler|Combat|Quarky
Caster|Firepower|Monkeywrench
Support|Healer|Buffer[/table]

at the least. you can pull binder, engineer, beastmaster, ranger, huntsman/artificer, and trapper out and make the archer archetype, although that isnt really useful because that just brings out the problem that you dont know how each one plays differently.

1) Well I don't specifically enjoy melee. I like archer classes as well which I just shoehorn into the rogue class.
2) So the guy in the forum is just basically saying the same thing as you are? He doesn't mention the swashbuckler class and agrees that pretty much everything can fit into the rogue/warrior/mage/cleric category. As for rogues, I still don't see why they have to be stealthy. For example, raiden from metal gear solid. He's obviously a ninja, you might call him a buckler because he's like a whirling dervish but I think of him just as a combat rogue. Imo rogues don't HAVE to be stealthy. Stealth is just one of many executions from the dev of exemplifying their unorthodox method of fighting and further expressing the view that they are defiant against what is deemed acceptable standards by society.
3) Well imo the problem with roles is that it doesn't define the archetype. Rogues and warriors can both play multiple archetypes. For example, I've seen warlord type characters as subclasses of warriors. Their power source as defined by D&D is martial power and obviously the best place they can fit is as a hybrid warrior/cleric. While their power source plays a part in defining the archetype, what they actually do in combat plays a part as well.

For example, even rogues can just solely play support roles by disarming traps and lockpicking doors that doesn't make them a cleric class. Warriors can be meat shields or dps as well. Rogues can even be tanks and dps, such as those dodge tanks types. Hell, even a mage can be a tank with magic defense spells, or utilizing the alteration tree in skyrim.

4) What exactly is magic?
Given a science fiction setting, what would be the difference between a psionist who manipulates teh environment and an engineer that puts on a force glove and moves things around?

[Alejandro]

Well, I checked back in to see if I was right. Sure enough! :smallcool:

[AquaBlade]

well would snipers be mages? or rogues

[endoperez]

well would snipers be mages? or rogues

Why would it be either?

They're hard to categorize. Sometimes good archers and riflemen are called snipers, but they don't act any differently from other soldiers with similar weapons. Sometimes snipers are stealthy assassins who kill people while hiding in a pile of dung. Sometimes snipers are a parody of musket era, standing in plain sight just next to the burly fighters and firing headshots from a few meters away.

That said, there is an descriptor for someone capable of dealing damage who can't withstand taking it - glass cannon. Most snipers are that.

It's not a proper archetype, though. A caster is sometimes a glass cannon, but he doesn't need to be. Rogues are sometimes glass cannons, but sometimes they're evasive enough to not be fragile, and sometimes they don't deal enough damage to count for the cannon part.

[AquaBlade]

Why would it be either?

They're hard to categorize. Sometimes good archers and riflemen are called snipers, but they don't act any differently from other soldiers with similar weapons. Sometimes snipers are stealthy assassins who kill people while hiding in a pile of dung. Sometimes snipers are a parody of musket era, standing in plain sight just next to the burly fighters and firing headshots from a few meters away.

That said, there is an descriptor for someone capable of dealing damage who can't withstand taking it - glass cannon. Most snipers are that.

It's not a proper archetype, though. A caster is sometimes a glass cannon, but he doesn't need to be. Rogues are sometimes glass cannons, but sometimes they're evasive enough to not be fragile, and sometimes they don't deal enough damage to count for the cannon part.

doesn't that mean they're mages then. Since snipers are glass cannons. And generally they have low mobility and low hp.

[endoperez]

doesn't that mean they're mages then. Since snipers are glass cannons. And generally they have low mobility and low hp.

No. Glass cannon and mage are totally separate things. It's like saying assassins are tanks because they are melee.

An archer or a swordsman or a mage can be a glass cannon. A support can be fragile.

Swordsman or archer or mage or support can be tanky, and some archers do wear armor and draw their swords and go to melee when the enemies get close.

A sniper is a glass cannon.

[AquaBlade]

No. Glass cannon and mage are totally separate things. It's like saying assassins are tanks because they are melee.

An archer or a swordsman or a mage can be a glass cannon. A support can be fragile.

Swordsman or archer or mage or support can be tanky, and some archers do wear armor and draw their swords and go to melee when the enemies get close.

A sniper is a glass cannon.

so when is something a mage.
Like a mortar guy, a rocket launcher guy an engineer in battlefield 3. where woudl they belong.
would you agree with this guy:
http://www.onrpg.com/boards/showthread.php?209178-Quick-questions-regarding-generic-mmorpg-classes/page3
post 28
he says snipers are mages >.>

I don't understand why he says stealth isn't singular to rogues.

[endoperez]

This won't work.

You have four fantasy things, and you're trying to use those four words to describe everything.

There are more than four things, so this is impossible.

Moreover, your base words are from fantasy, so they are specific to fantasy settings. This might be possible with a set of words that don't already rule out some things.


Or, to put it other way. You have given us three colors: red, yellow and white. You're asking us if the sun is red or yellow, if moon is yellow or white, and if the ocean is red or white. Sometimes the question can be answered, sometimes it can't.



Something is a mage when it casts magic.
If you want to compare further, ask a more precise question.

For example, "does a mortar guy in this FPS game play similarly to a damage mage in that MMORPG" is a good question.
"Is mortar guy a fighter or a mage" is not. I can't answer it. they would have to first know, WHICH mortar guy, and WHAT KIND OF a fighter or a mage.


Also, the guy on the other forum, who has the patience of a saint, did NOT say that. He said that in many games, snipers are mages, and that in many other games, snipers are rogues.

"RPG hybrid games do not treat Sniper based classes as Rogues. Sniper = Mage Archetype. That's just how they tend to make them in F/TPS/RPG hybrids.
A sniper class in an MMORPG is usually designed more like a Rogue should be, like with Florensia."


Stealth isn't unique to rogues.

While most League of Legends stealth characters are rogues, assassins or ninjas, it has Wu Kong, the Monkey King, who is a Fighter archetype and a trickster, and can go invisible.
The next champion to be released will most likely be a Fighter, too. Think of an enormous lion waiting in ambush, and give him a sword, and that's Ragnar.

[Wardog]

I have returned, to dry land and internet access!

And it seems that in the week I've been away, this argument has gone... absolutely nowhere. (Other than spreading to another forum).


I think I'll stick with my decision not to involve myself further. The only question remains: do I keep watching, or do I run away and hide for the sake of my sanity?

[AquaBlade]

This won't work.

You have four fantasy things, and you're trying to use those four words to describe everything.

There are more than four things, so this is impossible.

Moreover, your base words are from fantasy, so they are specific to fantasy settings. This might be possible with a set of words that don't already rule out some things.


Or, to put it other way. You have given us three colors: red, yellow and white. You're asking us if the sun is red or yellow, if moon is yellow or white, and if the ocean is red or white. Sometimes the question can be answered, sometimes it can't.



Something is a mage when it casts magic.
If you want to compare further, ask a more precise question.

For example, "does a mortar guy in this FPS game play similarly to a damage mage in that MMORPG" is a good question.
"Is mortar guy a fighter or a mage" is not. I can't answer it. they would have to first know, WHICH mortar guy, and WHAT KIND OF a fighter or a mage.


Also, the guy on the other forum, who has the patience of a saint, did NOT say that. He said that in many games, snipers are mages, and that in many other games, snipers are rogues.

"RPG hybrid games do not treat Sniper based classes as Rogues. Sniper = Mage Archetype. That's just how they tend to make them in F/TPS/RPG hybrids.
A sniper class in an MMORPG is usually designed more like a Rogue should be, like with Florensia."


Stealth isn't unique to rogues.

While most League of Legends stealth characters are rogues, assassins or ninjas, it has Wu Kong, the Monkey King, who is a Fighter archetype and a trickster, and can go invisible.
The next champion to be released will most likely be a Fighter, too. Think of an enormous lion waiting in ambush, and give him a sword, and that's Ragnar.

What... explain to me how snipers are mages lol. They don't use magic at all.
And moreover, like I said 50 times on that thread, he's basing that fact on crunch alone. And he called cole from infamous a mage. If you only look at the crunch with cole then he's a warrior without his lightning abilities. Look at how he moves, how agile he is and how deft he is with that melee weapon of his. That means you can't only look at crunch you have to consider fluff also. If you consider fluff how are snipers mages? But toapat consistently repeated that stealth is singular to rogues... And that rogues have to have stealth.

And also it doesn't make much sense. Like isn't it true what tvtropes said here
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses
about how mages are just replaced by sappers that throw bombs. And that guy disagrees......

So what would the engineer be. He said it's not necessarily a mage, but like an engineer from battlefield 3 is primarily repairing vehicles and anti-tank class. Isn't anti-tank defining a mage? especially the repairing vehicles part.


Wait, why did that guy with the patience of a saint not answer my last post with those questions? Have those questions already been repeated?

[endoperez]

What... explain to me how snipers are mages lol. They don't use magic at all.
...
That means you can't only look at crunch you have to consider fluff also.
...
Wait, why did that guy with the patience of a saint not answer my last post with those questions? Have those questions already been repeated?


1. When the crunch of snipers fits with the crunch of mages, snipers can be said to play like mages. This was explained very well in that other thread.

Snipers still won't be wizards. They'll just play like one.

2. If you don't separate crunch and fluff, this is impossible. There are characters who have fluff of Mage and the crunch of a Fighter. There are characters who have fluff of Rogue and the crunch of Fighter. You can't describe them with one word.

You have to separate crunch from fluff, or have more archetypes, or give up.

3. Because you ask questions often in few short sentences, ignore the long, detailed answers that have been researched well and even have pictures in them, and ask more, very similar, questions.

[AquaBlade]

1. When the crunch of snipers fits with the crunch of mages, snipers can be said to play like mages. This was explained very well in that other thread.

Snipers still won't be wizards. They'll just play like one.

2. If you don't separate crunch and fluff, this is impossible. There are characters who have fluff of Mage and the crunch of a Fighter. There are characters who have fluff of Rogue and the crunch of Fighter. You can't describe them with one word.

You have to separate crunch from fluff, or have more archetypes, or give up.

3. Because you ask questions often in few short sentences, ignore the long, detailed answers that have been researched well and even have pictures in them, and ask more, very similar, questions.

They stated that snipers are rogues here:
btw this is the link that's the wrong link
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ModernDaySciFiRPGClassEquivalents

And also, how many times do I have to say this......
he stated that cole from infamous was a mage. without fluff, and just looking at crunch he's a freaking warrior. all those lightning abilities can be associated with modern day guns and weapons. Like the hammer ability is just the rocket launcher. That grenad throwing lightning thing is just throwing a grenade. if we analyze him the same way he analyzes snipers. In addition, a mage using invisibility spells and muffle to play the role of a rogue, that's a rogue by crunch. There's no way you could tell it's a mage unless you look at fluff..
Isn't he contradicting himself.
Honestly I've posed this argument 50 times but no one ever addresses it....


So why did he answer all my questions before? And my last post with the numbered questions, aren't all those questions new....
Like, where would a demoman, rocket launcher, grenade throwers and sappers like mentioned in the tvtropes site.


(1) tbh, I still view mordecai as more of a ranger type class than anything. He has a sniper type skill tree which increases his accuracy. Similar to bowmen type classes where their dex stat increases their accuracy. btw, I've never played borderlands so I can't really support my view with hard facts like you do, as for the bowman, I'm basing off that dex stat off of maplestory.
In addition, it just seems that almost everyone agrees that snipers should be associated with rogue type classes.
Like here:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...assEquivalents
Snipers are labeled as : stealthy, agile, and precise like the rogue. I often find that mages are basically mostly characterized by magic abilities. For example, in skyrim, which is a game I actually play so I can pull up a lot of examples to support my view, mages have alteration skill tree which they can use to increase their own defense. They also aren't characterized by high nuking ability (btw, I meant nuking instead of glass cannon as a role lol), you can be an illusion mage who just focuses on screwing up people's minds, or focusing on the destruction tree. Even then, the skills are mostly ranged aoe, except for some expert level skills such as incinerate or icy spear.
And also, that tvtropes site isn't completely wrong either. Snipers like mordecai generally don't have ranged aoe damage capabilities which usually define mage archetypes if we're going with your nuker type. In addition, they don't even have any magic abilities, so how could they be called mages. Why would a rogue need to be agile, which in some cases they are in terms of snipers, when all they have to do is remain hidden and scout the area with their sniper rifle. I don't think that just makes them a mage. Mages don't necessarily have to stay stealthy and shoot fireballs, because that won't make them stealthy. They're often the ranged casting type which just casts ranged aoe spells.
As I've stated before, the change between genres often changes a lot of things where classes that don't normally function well in a rpg type environment function well in a fps setting. For example, in maplestory the sniper class would be very hard to implement a stealth function for them, so the devs just raise their health to make them more capable in combat. However, as we change to a fps setting, we change snipers to a sniper class where stealth is completely implementable which negates the need for higher health as it simply isn't needed.
And one more thing, I still have a hard time figuring out why rogues aren't generally stealthy. I believe that it's one of their defining archetypes. Yes mages can be stealthy. But they're not trained to be stealthy. You see games like hitman or splinter cell, those kinds of agents are definitely rogues. Even metal gear solid 4. Snake is definitely not agile in the last game because he's an old man lol. You can play the whole game using a sniper. Does that make you a mage? No. He's a trained soldier and he utilizes stealth as his abilities. Not a mage that just casts spells. Anyone can hide. But not everyone can infiltrate a building and avoid any detection from guards posted all around the building.
Do you disagree with the last poster on this thread? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...=249577&page=5
He makes several interesting arguments as well regarding the topic. Although he also seems a bit pigheaded as me regarding the fact that most rogues are stealthy. I don't think they have to be stealthy, yes I agree that in some games they aren't, but it is often a defining trait. Mordecai is a ranger type class which often falls into the rogue archetype. But I can't really argue much for him because I don't play borderlands.
The only way you can characterize snipers without magical abilities as mages is if you are looking solely at the crunch and ignore the fluff. If you look at cole in infamous in a similar way and ignore the fact that his abilities are lightning, he'd definitely not be a mage. He has high hp, he is extremely agile riding on ziplines and all his abilities can be associated with weapons. For example, megawatt hammer is basically a rocket launcher type attack.
If just looking at lilith and mordecai, I would think that lilith would be more of the mage because she's the one with the actual magic abilities. She's like the same thing as cole. Take away the magic abilities, there you have a rogue. Think about cole's abilities not being lightning, you have a warrior. And yes warriors have ranged abilities as well as depicted in guild wars 2.
2) Well basically all I'm trying to do is find out how to be able to take characters or any class and figure out if it fits in the rogue/warrior category.
3) In response to question 6: An invisible character is an invisible character in terms of crunch yes I agree. But if you do that cole then is a warrior. You need to look at the fluff AND the crunch to clearly define something. It's like calling a mage that only casts alteration spells a warrior because it tanks even harder than a warrior with fully plated armor and the mage is wearing robes. Look at the crunch and forget the magic, it's a warrior. Look at the fluff, you'll understand it's a mage.
There's a difference between any guy walking on the street hiding in the bushes and a trained spy lurking in the shadows infiltrating buildings. And to avoid any detection its often the best idea to find the best vantage point, stay still, take out your sniper rifle and collect enemy intel that way rather than running around.
And also, I'm not defining a class by a singular trait. Snipers like the tvtropes said aren't necessarily slow. They're actually fast. They're trained soldiers to scout, I don't know why they'd be slow lol.... And also basically you just say in terms of mordecai that he has low hp low speed big damage long range, that can just be a ranger class. And all of that attributes only points to the role of a nuker which is a singular trait. So would a guy carrying a machine gun be a mage because he plays the role of a nuker?
4) Well I find that shanoa is more of a mage. Crunchwise, yes she's a warrior. However, like I said you have to look at the fluff in the case of cole, you see all those abilities are just based off of glyphs. Is she a trained soldier? No. However, if she based those abilities off of str stats, then it'd probly be a warrior. As in the case of skyrim where conjuring a bound sword and wielding it is based off of the one-handed perk tree not the conjuration skill tree.
5) Lol, I'm sorry but I don't really understand the engineer example. Like for example, in ratchet and clank, ratchet is an engineer by nature as a lombax, but he has a variety of weapons and in combat he dances around, so that'd be more along the lines of a rogue right? But say a guy just shooting rocket launchers. By your definition of what a sniper is, that'd just be a mage even though he has no magic abilities? It deals ranged aoe damage, which is btw what a sniper doesn't do which is a major part of a mage in many games. And still I have hard time picturing a buff guy shooting rocket launchers as a mage. I feel that mages are characterized by magic which I think is definitely a defining trait.
It's just that in games where magic doesn't exist, it seems more appropriate for science to replace magic. Like in borderlands, lilith is the only one with magic abilities, and tvtropes characterized her as a sapper which is their mage that they associate with modern settings.
6) So engineers are warriors/rogues? What if it's like in battlefield 3 where they primarily repair things or blow up tanks. Aren't those mages? Mages primarily nuke so blowing up tanks, firing rocket launchers, mortars, or throwing grenades aren't those their things? Like on the tvtropes site do you agree that mages are replaced by sappers.
7) So it'd probably be easier if I focused on relating things with warrior/rogue traits rather than relate their attributes and combat styles with every archetype and seeing which fits the best?
8) I think the main issue right here is resolving what constitutes a mage and makes them not a rogue/warrior. Like for example things like rocket launcher people, mortars, grenade throwers, or sappers or machine gun guys cuz they play the role of nuker like mentioned in tvtropes. It might just stem from playing different games. Like me, I play more non-rpg games besides skyrim, like cod crysis vanquish and infamous type of games. In crysis, I mostly scout the area, and go for the stealthy approach pulling out my sniper rifle going invisible and marking all enemies. Then I proceed to hide behind things and slowly kill everything. Then I play a pure mage in skyrim just to feel what it is. Clearly that's not working in this case lol. However, I feel very different playing a pure mage in skyrim and playing crysis with a sniper rifle. And I also utilized every magic skill tree btw.

edit : I think the main problem right now is basically:
I think mages have to have magic, if they're in a setting that doesn't have magic, then its replaced by science.
You think that we should just look at crunch, but I think that if you ignore fluff, then stuff like cole is a warrior. Mages can be any class they want lol, cuz they ahve magic like in skyrim there's a skill tree for anything. Like I said before, you can use alteration to tank, you more armor than a warrior in full plating. Ignore the fluff and all you see is a warrior, not a mage.

My primary goal in this thread is to figure out how to classify something as a rogue/warrior and know all their attributes and traits. Hopefully we're still staying on topic lol.

thanks for your time again.)

[endoperez]

edit : I think the main problem right now is basically:
I think mages have to have magic, if they're in a setting that doesn't have magic, then its replaced by science.
You think that we should just look at crunch, but I think that if you ignore fluff, then stuff like cole is a warrior. Mages can be any class they want lol, cuz they ahve magic like in skyrim there's a skill tree for anything. Like I said before, you can use alteration to tank, you more armor than a warrior in full plating. Ignore the fluff and all you see is a warrior, not a mage.

My primary goal in this thread is to figure out how to classify something as a rogue/warrior and know all their attributes and traits. Hopefully we're still staying on topic lol.

That was a LOT of text, and analyzed all kinds of examples I'm sure I've never written. Was this, perhaps, cross-posted here from the other thread?

A mage with "mage" fluff can be a melee-range tank.
A non-mage with guns and grenades fluff can be a long-distance, fragile character with lots of utility that plays like a mage character.

Do you want that all classes you categorize as "mage" play similarly?

If you do, you can't say who's a mage and who's not just by looking at fluff.

Same applies to classes you want to categorize as "fighter" and "rogue". Do you want that all fighters play similarly? If you do, you can't rely on just fluff, otherwise you'd have melee guys, ranged guys, sniper guys and parachuters mixed up. Probably some sneaky, stealthy Spec Op types too, and some magitek military guys relying on wands and magical stuff.

[toapat]

I have returned, to dry land and internet access!

And it seems that in the week I've been away, this argument has gone... absolutely nowhere. (Other than spreading to another forum).


I think I'll stick with my decision not to involve myself further. The only question remains: do I keep watching, or do I run away and hide for the sake of my sanity?

i kinda give up like you did, Aquablade is not understanding that Fighter (Meatshield), Rogue (Chimp), Wizard (Glass Cannon), Cleric (Healer) is a team composition, not a batch of Archetypes that define everything

I basically summarized it as Fighter, Rogue, Swashbuckler, Caster, Support because every class has some thing they are originally based on, and the lead shield surrounding Aqua's brain is getting too annoying to pierce to be worth it.

Endoperez had an entire post where he pulled appart definitions of mine that had been explained in a prior post, without knowing about that post, and thus failing with the argument.

[AquaBlade]

i kinda give up like you did, Aquablade is not understanding that Fighter (Meatshield), Rogue (Chimp), Wizard (Glass Cannon), Cleric (Healer) is a team composition, not a batch of Archetypes that define everything

I basically summarized it as Fighter, Rogue, Swashbuckler, Caster, Support because every class has some thing they are originally based on, and the lead shield surrounding Aqua's brain is getting too annoying to pierce to be worth it.

Endoperez had an entire post where he pulled appart definitions of mine that had been explained in a prior post, without knowing about that post, and thus failing with the argument.

yeah but this guy
http://www.onrpg.com/boards/showthread.php?209178-Quick-questions-regarding-generic-mmorpg-classes/page3
states that stealth isn't even a defining trait of a rogue. All these opinions are getting too confusing >.<
and like I made the argument 50 times already... he says a sniper is a rogue solely based on crunch. Then he says cole from infamous is a mage. If you only look at crunch he's not a freaking mage he's a goddamn warrior... so isn't he contradicting himself.

so if they are a team composition then you can't just classify things into rogue/warrior?

[Alejandro]

I have returned, to dry land and internet access!

And it seems that in the week I've been away, this argument has gone... absolutely nowhere. (Other than spreading to another forum).


I think I'll stick with my decision not to involve myself further. The only question remains: do I keep watching, or do I run away and hide for the sake of my sanity?

Wardog, do you enjoy D&D, Star Wars Saga Edition, or Shadowrun?

[AquaBlade]

Wardog, do you enjoy D&D, Star Wars Saga Edition, or Shadowrun?

see this is ridiculous. No one refutes my argument because that guy is contradicting himself....

[Alejandro]

see this is ridiculous. No one refutes my argument because that guy is contradicting himself....

Well, it didn't take long for that to work.

Your argument, such as it were, has been accepted, refuted, theorized on, questioned, and explained in several different and insanely patient ways. To sum them all up: You are asking for semantics and opinions, and thus cannot ever receive totally correct answers.

If you still have not grasped that, then you are probably not capable of such. Which is why I asked you some pages ago how old you were, because it seemed like you're one of those "I have everything figured out" teenage prodigies. Or, you're just trolling, and if so, I compliment you on your success.

[AquaBlade]

Well, it didn't take long for that to work.

Your argument, such as it were, has been accepted, refuted, theorized on, questioned, and explained in several different and insanely patient ways. To sum them all up: You are asking for semantics and opinions, and thus cannot ever receive totally correct answers.

If you still have not grasped that, then you are probably not capable of such. Which is why I asked you some pages ago how old you were, because it seemed like you're one of those "I have everything figured out" teenage prodigies. Or, you're just trolling, and if so, I compliment you on your success.

how has my argument with cole can only be mage if we look at fluff been answered. I don't see that anywhere lol. The guy is looking at snipers only from crunch which he concludes that it's a mage. There's no way you can conclude that cole is a mage without looking at fluff.

And my numbered questions above? They've been answered already?
For example, are mortars rocket launcher people rogue/warrior?

are there any new ideas that can be expressed on the subject? Is it even possible to write a research paper on it.

[Alejandro]

When is it due?

[AquaBlade]

When is it due?

Not writing anything. I'm just wondering if there is anythign to be researched about this.

how has my argument with cole can only be mage if we look at fluff been answered. I don't see that anywhere lol. The guy is looking at snipers only from crunch which he concludes that it's a mage. There's no way you can conclude that cole is a mage without looking at fluff.

And my numbered questions above? They've been answered already?
For example, are mortars rocket launcher people rogue/warrior?

[endoperez]

Endoperez had an entire post where he pulled appart definitions of mine that had been explained in a prior post, without knowing about that post, and thus failing with the argument.

Yeah, sorry about that. I still disagree with some of your definitions, but back there I argued against words you had defined differently from how I thought.

edit:

AquaBlade, I didn't quess Cole was such a big part of your argument. I honestly had a hard time finding the place where you argued for him not being a mage, because it was in the middle of such a HUGE post. Any way, here goes...



If you look at cole in infamous in a similar way and ignore the fact that his abilities are lightning, he'd definitely not be a mage. He has high hp, he is extremely agile riding on ziplines and all his abilities can be associated with weapons. For example, megawatt hammer is basically a rocket launcher type attack.


I often find that mages are basically mostly characterized by magic abilities. For example, in skyrim, which is a game I actually play so I can pull up a lot of examples to support my view, mages have alteration skill tree which they can use to increase their own defense. They also aren't characterized by high nuking ability (btw, I meant nuking instead of glass cannon as a role lol), you can be an illusion mage who just focuses on screwing up people's minds, or focusing on the destruction tree. Even then, the skills are mostly ranged aoe, except for some expert level skills such as incinerate or icy spear.

About half of Cole's abilities/weapons are AoE (going by the TvTropes list). AoE effects are more often given to the Mage archetype, than to the Warrior archetype, because the Warrior archetype usually use melee weapons or bows, with AoE effects usually centered on them.

Other features of Cole's abilities fit the Rogue archetype. Some fit the Warrior archetype. Some fit the mage Archetype. He isn't easy to categorize into three or four fantasy archetypes. That's because he's modeled on a very different archetype of a Comic Book Superhero.

Why doesn't the Warrior use weapons? Because Warrior is a fantasy archetype. Archetypes aren't universal and won't work across all worlds.

[AquaBlade]

Yeah, sorry about that. I still disagree with some of your definitions, but back there I argued against words you had defined differently from how I thought.

edit:

AquaBlade, I didn't quess Cole was such a big part of your argument. I honestly had a hard time finding the place where you argued for him not being a mage, because it was in the middle of such a HUGE post. Any way, here goes...






About half of Cole's abilities/weapons are AoE (going by the TvTropes list). AoE effects are more often given to the Mage archetype, than to the Warrior archetype, because the Warrior archetype usually use melee weapons or bows, with AoE effects usually centered on them.

Other features of Cole's abilities fit the Rogue archetype. Some fit the Warrior archetype. Some fit the mage Archetype. He isn't easy to categorize into three or four fantasy archetypes. That's because he's modeled on a very different archetype of a Comic Book Superhero.

Why doesn't the Warrior use weapons? Because Warrior is a fantasy archetype. Archetypes aren't universal and won't work across all worlds.

Warriors can deal aoe damage too like in guild wars 2.
So that long list of questions up there, has any of them not been answered beforeyet?

[endoperez]

Warriors can deal aoe damage too like in guild wars 2.
So that long list of questions up there, has any of them not been answered beforeyet?

No one can AOE or stealth or cast spells, see Mount & Blade. Only fighters exist, there are no rogues or mages.

See how using one example won't work.

Also, you were one of those who said mages are mostly AoE. Warriors deal aoe. Does this mean all mages are warriors?
Edit:
Let me rephrase that.
Are Guild Wars 2 warriors mages, since mages are AoE guys and GW2Ws use AoE?

If yes, well, things just got very weird. I doubt you'll argue that. I wouldn't.

If they're not mages, I guess AoE is not the defining feature of mages. Are mages then defined only by their fluff? Well, in that case the archetype is useless for everything except fluff.

There is also a third option: that the GW2 guys do have AoE, but they are still warriors, but they're an exception and AoE is still most commonly attributed to the mages. Which still means that Cole is more likely to be Mage than Warrior, since he has features of both but his powers have lots of AoE and he doesn't use swords.


You have been given answers, but you ignore them. What kind of an answer would you like to hear?

[endoperez]

Sorry for the double-post.

I did a quick Google search, and this same thread popped up on several forums by AquaBlade, aka Ishida52134, aka Tanks123, aka Uryu52134... So, yeah.

I think the most important question here is, like Alejandro said, "When is it due?".

That said, parts of this were kinda interesting.

For example, the Fighter / Rogue / Swashbuckler thing - where does one end and another start? Or how can someone be like a mage when he has no magic, and mage is about magic?

I think I'll have to stop here, too, but it's a pity I was late to the party and most people who had something to say had already said it several times.

As I said before, Toapak, I'm sorry about joining the thread so late and answering posts when I hadn't read the earlier posts. I still think swashbuckler is a poor name for that archetype. If I've got them correctly now, they're called 'bruisers' in League of Legends, compared to 'tanks' (warriors).


Also, isn't it interesting that AquaBlade has consistently managed to draw out positive responses from so many different people? He writes like someone really eager for answers.

[Alejandro]

It's a testament to this forum that so many well thought out and polite answers were given. Good call on the Google search. Aquablade, you're either trying to actually write a paper on this and want to abscond with free text (possible but unlikely) or you're just trolling for fun (possible) or you just have a desperate need for attention (also possible.)

And as I said before, literally anyone can operate a mortar. I have. It's one of the simplest and oldest weapons still in use by the US and other militaries, not counting the bayonet. A fighter, rogue, mage, or cleric can all be taught to adjust the firing angle and drop the round. Some basic math skills help.

[endoperez]

The other forum he linked to (onrpg.com) also had really nice, detailed replies. With images and everything!

[Wardog]

Wardog, do you enjoy D&D, Star Wars Saga Edition, or Shadowrun?

I haven't played either, I'm afraid.

[AquaBlade]

The other forum he linked to (onrpg.com) also had really nice, detailed replies. With images and everything!

well yeah. That's the reason I'm probably this confused. I started posting on one forum. Then I started posting on other forums to get different opinions on the subject to ensure that the opinion on the matter is unified. Now I know that isn't the case...
About cole again, that guy on onrpg mentioned that it's only a mage first. Isn't he wrong about that then. like I mentioned with the crunch and fluff thing.

SO snipers don't have to be mages?

[AquaBlade]

No one can AOE or stealth or cast spells, see Mount & Blade. Only fighters exist, there are no rogues or mages.

See how using one example won't work.

Also, you were one of those who said mages are mostly AoE. Warriors deal aoe. Does this mean all mages are warriors?
Edit:
Let me rephrase that.
Are Guild Wars 2 warriors mages, since mages are AoE guys and GW2Ws use AoE?

If yes, well, things just got very weird. I doubt you'll argue that. I wouldn't.

If they're not mages, I guess AoE is not the defining feature of mages. Are mages then defined only by their fluff? Well, in that case the archetype is useless for everything except fluff.

There is also a third option: that the GW2 guys do have AoE, but they are still warriors, but they're an exception and AoE is still most commonly attributed to the mages. Which still means that Cole is more likely to be Mage than Warrior, since he has features of both but his powers have lots of AoE and he doesn't use swords.


You have been given answers, but you ignore them. What kind of an answer would you like to hear?

I don't think aoe defines mages. Like the guy on the other forum said, one trait doesn't define the archetype. And rangers often have aoe ranged damage.
In addition, rangers can play like mages too. They're screwed if you get in to them and they rely on kiting. Mages can also kite in certain games by teleporting.

So what is your answer to that aren't mages magic thing

so why wouldn't anyone answer my long list of questions some posts above lol. for example, is a hacker a rogue or a mage. or a hybrid.

and back to the primary question why I made all these threads.
How can we determine if something fits into the rogue/warrior category? Is there a specific formula?
thanks.

[Alejandro]

People are not answering your long list of questions because you clearly don't want to reach a conclusion, you just want to endlessly debate. Sorry, but I had my fill of that in college, when the pothead friend wanted to talk about 'quantum physics' for hours.

[AquaBlade]

People are not answering your long list of questions because you clearly don't want to reach a conclusion, you just want to endlessly debate. Sorry, but I had my fill of that in college, when the pothead friend wanted to talk about 'quantum physics' for hours.

and back to the primary question why I made all these threads.
How can we determine if something fits into the rogue/warrior category? Is there a specific formula?
how am i endlessly debating. I want to reach a conclusion. Everyone just has a different opinion.

[tyckspoon]

How can we determine if something fits into the rogue/warrior category? Is there a specific formula?
how am i endlessly debating. I want to reach a conclusion. Everyone just has a different opinion.

The fact that you're still asking this question is why it seems like you aren't asking in good faith. It appears that the only 'consensus' you've gotten, across all the places you've asked, is that there is no consensus, and you are unwilling or unable to accept that. So:

No. There is no formula. There is no standard definition of what 'Rogues', 'Warriors', 'Mages', and 'Clerics' are. Game designers are not given a four-volume set of 'How to Make a Rogue/Warrior/Etc' tomes when they start working on a game, and furthermore they aren't even required to *consider* how their characters might sort into this particular scheme! The only conclusion you can reach is what makes each type of character for you. That conclusion will not be and can not be expected to be consistent for different people. Figure it out for yourself and go be happy.

If you can't accept that and you continue to ask your same question over and over in hopes of somehow achieving a different answer.. well, I guess I respect your persistence, but you'd probably be better off turning it to a more fruitful goal.

[AquaBlade]

The fact that you're still asking this question is why it seems like you aren't asking in good faith. It appears that the only 'consensus' you've gotten, across all the places you've asked, is that there is no consensus, and you are unwilling or unable to accept that. So:

No. There is no formula. There is no standard definition of what 'Rogues', 'Warriors', 'Mages', and 'Clerics' are. Game designers are not given a four-volume set of 'How to Make a Rogue/Warrior/Etc' tomes when they start working on a game, and furthermore they aren't even required to *consider* how their characters might sort into this particular scheme! The only conclusion you can reach is what makes each type of character for you. That conclusion will not be and can not be expected to be consistent for different people. Figure it out for yourself and go be happy.

If you can't accept that and you continue to ask your same question over and over in hopes of somehow achieving a different answer.. well, I guess I respect your persistence, but you'd probably be better off turning it to a more fruitful goal.

lol thansk I finally get it.
But some classes for example aren't they unarguable.

but the guy on the other forum seemed so confident that it is possibel to classify things.
For example a scout has to be a rogue.
A sniper can be seen a rogue? Why do some people perceive it as a mage?
And a engineer that repairs stuff ? Or an anti-tank class?

[Alejandro]

lol thansk I finally get it.
But some classes for example aren't they unarguable.

but the guy on the other forum seemed so confident that it is possibel to classify things.
For example a scout has to be a rogue.
A sniper can be seen a rogue? Why do some people perceive it as a mage?
And a engineer that repairs stuff ? Or an anti-tank class?

The guy on the other forum is not an authority. No one is. A scout does not have to be a rogue. A mage that turns invisible is a great scout. Please try not to be so...mentally inflexible.

[AquaBlade]

The guy on the other forum is not an authority. No one is. A scout does not have to be a rogue. A mage that turns invisible is a great scout. Please try not to be so...mentally inflexible.

but doesn't the guy on the other forum make a lot of sense?
So I can't just go by physical and magical to determine rogue/warrior?>
Like assuming there's only rogue/warrior/mage/cleric
wouldn't it make sense just to say physical is rogue/warrior?
what would a hacker be?
so
http://mmohuts.com/editorials/mmo-classes-playing-a-rogue
it says that hacker can be a rogue. a rogue can even be a mage throwing fireballs. is that an authrotiy?

so it's not possibel to write a research paper since everything is subjective here?

[AquaBlade]

so what should I do if I like rogue/warrior classes?
Like you guys like your own types of classes. What do you guys do.

[Alejandro]

Let me try and nicely explain something to you. In my job, I often have to work with college students who believe that because something is said online, it must be true. (This is one reason I asked you your age.)

I have to explain to them that nothing you find on a webpage is an authority, unless it is properly cited, backed up, and referenced from other data and works. Anything some random person on the internet says in a forum (including you and me) and anything you read in someone's editorial about rogues, is nothing more than opinion, and equally likely to be true or complete crap.

I will repeat it in case you didn't get it: Everything you read online, with the exception of, say, a peer reviewed journal or a trustworthy reference site, is nothing but opinions, views, blowhards, and garbage. It is up to you (no one else) to form your own views, hopefully after careful and rational thought.

[AquaBlade]

Let me try and nicely explain something to you. In my job, I often have to work with college students who believe that because something is said online, it must be true. (This is one reason I asked you your age.)

I have to explain to them that nothing you find on a webpage is an authority, unless it is properly cited, backed up, and referenced from other data and works. Anything some random person on the internet says in a forum (including you and me) and anything you read in someone's editorial about rogues, is nothing more than opinion, and equally likely to be true or complete crap.

I will repeat it in case you didn't get it: Everything you read online, with the exception of, say, a peer reviewed journal or a trustworthy reference site, is nothing but opinions, views, blowhards, and garbage. It is up to you (no one else) to form your own views, hopefully after careful and rational thought.

so basically it's not possible to research into this topic as it's all subjective?

[AquaBlade]

wait so you like a certain class in rpgs right? What do you do then. If you play video gaems don't you look at video games that correspond to that type of class.
For example if you like rogues, you look for stealth games like metal gear solid.

there's no way we can find a common ground regarding this subject in categorizing things? If we take all the variables and classify each of them?

[endoperez]

Hey guys, a challenge. Answer all his questions by quoting the previous answers to his questions.


but the guy on the other forum seemed so confident that it is possibel to classify things.
For example a scout has to be a rogue.

You are misquoting him, or didn't understand what he said.


You are still trying to define these characters by a singular trait instead of looking at the four archetypes and seeing how each character fits them. I cannot help you anymore than I already have.
Source
(http://www.onrpg.com/boards/showthread.php?209178-Quick-questions-regarding-generic-mmorpg-classes&p=2865674&viewfull=1#post2865674)


As I've told you and now Skyrax has told you: The archetype a character or class falls into in these games is determined by their stats and ablilities. There is no solid definition of a class that every game uses. It is their traits, ALL OF THEM, that define the class; not a singular trait.
Source (http://www.onrpg.com/boards/showthread.php?209178-Quick-questions-regarding-generic-mmorpg-classes&p=2866032&viewfull=1#post2866032)

[Daremonai]

so basically it's not possible to research into this topic as it's all subjective?

It's POSSIBLE to research the topic, but it is sufficiently subjective that you won't get any more than a few sweeping generalisations out of your work and it'll largely prove fruitless/pointless to do so.

[endoperez]

It's POSSIBLE to research the topic, but it is sufficiently subjective that you won't get any more than a few sweeping generalisations out of your work and it'll largely prove fruitless/pointless to do so.

It would be possible to research the crunch and formulate it into something that game developers could use. While doing so, it would also be possible to suggest some ways in which the terminology could be made more consistent.

I totally agree with you on the fluff. Anything attempting to generalize "the mage" will be too unspecific to be of any use.

[AquaBlade]

It would be possible to research the crunch and formulate it into something that game developers could use. While doing so, it would also be possible to suggest some ways in which the terminology could be made more consistent.

I totally agree with you on the fluff. Anything attempting to generalize "the mage" will be too unspecific to be of any use.

Lol, but that guy said that it's possible to classify if you look at the stats and abilities as a whole and connect them to archetypes. So doesn't that mean it is possible?

As for mages, I honestly feel that its the fluff that actually governs the class. Because like in skyrim, mages can be anything. They can be a tank like a warrior, conjure weapons, pretty much do anything they want using magic and play any role they want.

How would I research without any source though regarding this topic?

[AquaBlade]

but seriously any ideas on these questions? Hopefully this'll be my last questions.
or you can do that challenge thing if they have been answered before.

(1) tbh, I still view mordecai as more of a ranger type class than anything. He has a sniper type skill tree which increases his accuracy. Similar to bowmen type classes where their dex stat increases their accuracy. btw, I've never played borderlands so I can't really support my view with hard facts like you do, as for the bowman, I'm basing off that dex stat off of maplestory.
In addition, it just seems that almost everyone agrees that snipers should be associated with rogue type classes.
Like here:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...assEquivalents
Snipers are labeled as : stealthy, agile, and precise like the rogue. I often find that mages are basically mostly characterized by magic abilities. For example, in skyrim, which is a game I actually play so I can pull up a lot of examples to support my view, mages have alteration skill tree which they can use to increase their own defense. They also aren't characterized by high nuking ability (btw, I meant nuking instead of glass cannon as a role lol), you can be an illusion mage who just focuses on screwing up people's minds, or focusing on the destruction tree. Even then, the skills are mostly ranged aoe, except for some expert level skills such as incinerate or icy spear.
And also, that tvtropes site isn't completely wrong either. Snipers like mordecai generally don't have ranged aoe damage capabilities which usually define mage archetypes if we're going with your nuker type. In addition, they don't even have any magic abilities, so how could they be called mages. Why would a rogue need to be agile, which in some cases they are in terms of snipers, when all they have to do is remain hidden and scout the area with their sniper rifle. I don't think that just makes them a mage. Mages don't necessarily have to stay stealthy and shoot fireballs, because that won't make them stealthy. They're often the ranged casting type which just casts ranged aoe spells.
As I've stated before, the change between genres often changes a lot of things where classes that don't normally function well in a rpg type environment function well in a fps setting. For example, in maplestory the sniper class would be very hard to implement a stealth function for them, so the devs just raise their health to make them more capable in combat. However, as we change to a fps setting, we change snipers to a sniper class where stealth is completely implementable which negates the need for higher health as it simply isn't needed.
And one more thing, I still have a hard time figuring out why rogues aren't generally stealthy. I believe that it's one of their defining archetypes. Yes mages can be stealthy. But they're not trained to be stealthy. You see games like hitman or splinter cell, those kinds of agents are definitely rogues. Even metal gear solid 4. Snake is definitely not agile in the last game because he's an old man lol. You can play the whole game using a sniper. Does that make you a mage? No. He's a trained soldier and he utilizes stealth as his abilities. Not a mage that just casts spells. Anyone can hide. But not everyone can infiltrate a building and avoid any detection from guards posted all around the building.
Do you disagree with the last poster on this thread? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...=249577&page=5
He makes several interesting arguments as well regarding the topic. Although he also seems a bit pigheaded as me regarding the fact that most rogues are stealthy. I don't think they have to be stealthy, yes I agree that in some games they aren't, but it is often a defining trait. Mordecai is a ranger type class which often falls into the rogue archetype. But I can't really argue much for him because I don't play borderlands.
The only way you can characterize snipers without magical abilities as mages is if you are looking solely at the crunch and ignore the fluff. If you look at cole in infamous in a similar way and ignore the fact that his abilities are lightning, he'd definitely not be a mage. He has high hp, he is extremely agile riding on ziplines and all his abilities can be associated with weapons. For example, megawatt hammer is basically a rocket launcher type attack.
If just looking at lilith and mordecai, I would think that lilith would be more of the mage because she's the one with the actual magic abilities. She's like the same thing as cole. Take away the magic abilities, there you have a rogue. Think about cole's abilities not being lightning, you have a warrior. And yes warriors have ranged abilities as well as depicted in guild wars 2.
2) Well basically all I'm trying to do is find out how to be able to take characters or any class and figure out if it fits in the rogue/warrior category.
3) In response to question 6: An invisible character is an invisible character in terms of crunch yes I agree. But if you do that cole then is a warrior. You need to look at the fluff AND the crunch to clearly define something. It's like calling a mage that only casts alteration spells a warrior because it tanks even harder than a warrior with fully plated armor and the mage is wearing robes. Look at the crunch and forget the magic, it's a warrior. Look at the fluff, you'll understand it's a mage.
There's a difference between any guy walking on the street hiding in the bushes and a trained spy lurking in the shadows infiltrating buildings. And to avoid any detection its often the best idea to find the best vantage point, stay still, take out your sniper rifle and collect enemy intel that way rather than running around.
And also, I'm not defining a class by a singular trait. Snipers like the tvtropes said aren't necessarily slow. They're actually fast. They're trained soldiers to scout, I don't know why they'd be slow lol.... And also basically you just say in terms of mordecai that he has low hp low speed big damage long range, that can just be a ranger class. And all of that attributes only points to the role of a nuker which is a singular trait. So would a guy carrying a machine gun be a mage because he plays the role of a nuker?
4) Well I find that shanoa is more of a mage. Crunchwise, yes she's a warrior. However, like I said you have to look at the fluff in the case of cole, you see all those abilities are just based off of glyphs. Is she a trained soldier? No. However, if she based those abilities off of str stats, then it'd probly be a warrior. As in the case of skyrim where conjuring a bound sword and wielding it is based off of the one-handed perk tree not the conjuration skill tree.
5) Lol, I'm sorry but I don't really understand the engineer example. Like for example, in ratchet and clank, ratchet is an engineer by nature as a lombax, but he has a variety of weapons and in combat he dances around, so that'd be more along the lines of a rogue right? But say a guy just shooting rocket launchers. By your definition of what a sniper is, that'd just be a mage even though he has no magic abilities? It deals ranged aoe damage, which is btw what a sniper doesn't do which is a major part of a mage in many games. And still I have hard time picturing a buff guy shooting rocket launchers as a mage. I feel that mages are characterized by magic which I think is definitely a defining trait.
It's just that in games where magic doesn't exist, it seems more appropriate for science to replace magic. Like in borderlands, lilith is the only one with magic abilities, and tvtropes characterized her as a sapper which is their mage that they associate with modern settings.
6) So engineers are warriors/rogues? What if it's like in battlefield 3 where they primarily repair things or blow up tanks. Aren't those mages? Mages primarily nuke so blowing up tanks, firing rocket launchers, mortars, or throwing grenades aren't those their things? Like on the tvtropes site do you agree that mages are replaced by sappers.
7) So it'd probably be easier if I focused on relating things with warrior/rogue traits rather than relate their attributes and combat styles with every archetype and seeing which fits the best?
8) I think the main issue right here is resolving what constitutes a mage and makes them not a rogue/warrior. Like for example things like rocket launcher people, mortars, grenade throwers, or sappers or machine gun guys cuz they play the role of nuker like mentioned in tvtropes. It might just stem from playing different games. Like me, I play more non-rpg games besides skyrim, like cod crysis vanquish and infamous type of games. In crysis, I mostly scout the area, and go for the stealthy approach pulling out my sniper rifle going invisible and marking all enemies. Then I proceed to hide behind things and slowly kill everything. Then I play a pure mage in skyrim just to feel what it is. Clearly that's not working in this case lol. However, I feel very different playing a pure mage in skyrim and playing crysis with a sniper rifle. And I also utilized every magic skill tree btw.
9) So what exactly would you characterize things like classes primarily throwing grenades and bombs, or rocket launcher guys or engineer classes that support like in tf2 or battlefield 3. He said that they don't have to be mages but like you said they have the crunch of a mage.
10) And finally I don't understand, why isn't magic replaced by modern day science?


edit : I think the main problem right now is basically:
I think mages have to have magic, if they're in a setting that doesn't have magic, then its replaced by science.
You think that we should just look at crunch, but I think that if you ignore fluff, then stuff like cole is a warrior. Mages can be any class they want lol, cuz they ahve magic like in skyrim there's a skill tree for anything. Like I said before, you can use alteration to tank, you more armor than a warrior in full plating. Ignore the fluff and all you see is a warrior, not a mage.