Character Classes and what they mean to you

[Fwiffo86]

Ok, so I have noticed a couple of things that prompt me to ask this question. Others will follow, to be certain. It is important to say that I am looking for your envisioned archetype here. None of this sub-class stuff. No (x)edition builds, no calculations. I am asking:

What does a Warrior represent to you?

My Answer:

A warrior is the quintessential fighting man. Using the skills learned while serving in the militia, brawling in the alleys of the cities, or hunting game on the plains. The Warrior is the one who steps up, and fights the good fight. Warriors come in all varieties, and there are places and times for each and everyone one of those. But the true warrior, is one who knows his limits. He does not begrudge others for their skills or abilities. He knows his skills have their uses, and where/when to use them.

Weapon in hand, he strides into the thick of it, unafraid of the outcome. Those that live by the sword, are likely to die by it too. Fight the good fight. Stand resolute before your enemies. Trust in your steel. These short quips lie at the heart of the warrior. Good or evil, it doesn't matter. He fights, because he wants too.

----EDIT

I have never been disappointed with any form or function of warrior in all of D&D. They have done exactly what I expected from them at all times. While they are not my favorite class, they are one of my favored.

[RustyArmor]

I pretty much agree, even with all the screaming and flailing about the tier ranking fighter do great in combat. And for most part seem a popular choice for most regardless. Though BoNS made them much funner and gave them more variety in 3rd. But all in all I feel that is how fighters should be but with a tad more skill points (which we houserule they get 6+ in our games anyway).

Rogue types should be skill monkeys as they always been but also have some combat like styles but more disable related stuff, maybe slowing down foes, blinding them, stunning, etc instead of sneak attacks for more dmg since dmg is kinda relative.

Clerics are only class I don't care for in d&d since I myself see them more of a healer and skill monkey (most lore related skills) over the "Mega buff I'm better then you fighters!" types but that is just me.

[Sartharina]

The Barbarian is the Adventurer's Adventurer, and most self-reliant in any adventure. He's got the power to overcome most obstacles through brute force, the cunning/skills to avoid what is unadvisable or impossible to kill (Or to put him in better position to kill), and reputation and force of personality to get what he needs from others. He's not simply "FRENZIED RAGH SMASH!", and more like an 80's Action Hero. Pretty good all around, and possibly the best guy to go on any sort of adventure solo. However, he lacks party support and synergy, so needs to be able to carry his own weight well enough on his own - See: Conan the Barbarian and Rambo.

The Paladin, in contrast, is the Hero's Hero. He is the champion and embodiment of a cause, not an institution. He gains divine ability that allows him to put his honor and valor before reason and discretion. Yes, he has the most restrictions on what he can or cannot do - but those chains are his strength and his shield. The problem is converting this sort of Underdog archetype into one that actually works, and isn't invincible. He has just enough ability to succeed against otherwise impossible odds, but is not so all-powerful that the temptations to take the "Quick and Dirty" route are meaningless. Yes, they tend to be seen as boring characters just by looking at what they do - but only if you don't actually see the inner struggles they have to deal with constantly. As for making this mechanical - he's designed to wear the most conspicuous armor, which is usually heaviest. He has strong passive and active defenses (Armor, Divine Grace, and either a Shield, or weapon skill) to stand up to otherwise superior threats, and offensive ability that can be the strongest in the game when exemplifying or furthering his cause (Read: SMITE EVIL FOR GREAT JUSTICE!), but is otherwise mediocre - he can stand against an army of bullies, but loses barfights. His ability requires him to maintain being "In the Right". Of course, you can add some degree of moral complexity by codifying his cause, which sort of transcends alignment. Superman, John Galt, and several kinds of cult champions are Paladins. They're a Soldier, which means

Fighters tend to be somewhere in between Barbarians and Paladins. They lack the diverse means of the barbarian and restrictions of the paladin. They tend to be more technical than both, with good active and passive defenses, and offensive ability. It's a bit harder to quantify where they are in terms of readiness, though - a Paladin is only functional when he's "In the Right" of his cause, but that's ideally all the time. A barbarian has the means to become powerful for whatever reason he wants, but can have them exhausted. The fighter, on the other hand, has his passive and active defenses on call almost all the time (From battle to battle at least, though not round to round). He's also a lot more technical in a fight than a barbarian - While the Barbarian might be faster, stronger, and tougher than a Fighter, the Fighter has greater ability to put himself where he needs to be/where enemies don't want him to be, greater ability to overcome the defenses both active and passive of enemies, and greater ability to mitigate the threats enemies pose. He has a much stronger Control element than either Paladins or Barbarians.

Rogues are men of many talents. I've only touched on the Toolbox aspect of characters in the Barbarian - but this guy's the master of tools. While a Barbarian has passable stealth and scouting ability, the rogue has more options and tools to get greater results out of those utilities. Despite a reputation for breaking rules, he's still confined by the laws of reality. He just doesn't limit himself to artificial, arbitrary restrictions on top of the laws he has to follow. An adventure is a puzzle, and he's the guy best-equipped to solve it 'properly', since he lacks the power to just break it or mystical ability to redefine it. Essentially, he's the Sierran/Lucas Artisan Adventure Game Adventurer. Of course, while he has to play by the rules, he has the most tools available to do so, and the solutions to the puzzles he solves are the logical but unintuitive ones. In combat, he has to rely on active defenses and environmental awareness to survive, and needs to use his abilities and those of his party members to deal damage. However, the damage he deals in the right circumstances should be enough that enemies will do their damnedest to try to avoid letting him get into those right circumstances, giving the rogue domination of the battlefield. Of course, it's VERY difficult to design and implement a class this complex and reliant on the environment and encounter, because the entire game needs to be designed around his capabilities - enemies need weaknesses he can exploit, strengths he can negate, special mechanics he can take advantage of, and environments need ways for him to interact with them to gain advantages in combat. Of course, in a simplified system, this can be abstractly emulated by giving the rogue a "Guile Point" resource similar to Action Points, focused more on opening more options. I also liked the interplay between Advantage and Sneak Attack from previous iterations of the playtest, where he could gain Advantage automatically either by ganging up on someone or isolating them into a duel, then being able to expend that advantage for Sneak Attack damage, or even deal sneak attack in a suboptimal situation by taking disadvantage on the roll. However, it was hamstrung by the Advantage and Disadvantage stacking rules, preventing him from gaining advantage on a SA through two sources, or negating disadvantage with an advantage, and gaining it again to Sneak Attack - essentially allowing him to expend class features to gain Advantage, or expend Advantage to use class features.

The wizard is the guy who has limited ability to rewrite reality. Of course, even this has restrictions, in how often and how he can do so. The stronger the wizard, the more often he can rewrite reality, and to a greater extent. Yes, he's able to do things nobody else can do. The problem is with balancing this so that he can still rewrite the world, yet not outshine those confined by the rules.

[Lokiare]

I pretty much agree, even with all the screaming and flailing about the tier ranking fighter do great in combat. And for most part seem a popular choice for most regardless. Though BoNS made them much funner and gave them more variety in 3rd. But all in all I feel that is how fighters should be but with a tad more skill points (which we houserule they get 6+ in our games anyway).

Rogue types should be skill monkeys as they always been but also have some combat like styles but more disable related stuff, maybe slowing down foes, blinding them, stunning, etc instead of sneak attacks for more dmg since dmg is kinda relative.

Clerics are only class I don't care for in d&d since I myself see them more of a healer and skill monkey (most lore related skills) over the "Mega buff I'm better then you fighters!" types but that is just me.

Yeah, rogues were only skill monkeys in 3E. In earlier editions they had 5 class features that overcame very specific obstacles. In 2E all classes got non-weapon proficiencies (skills). In 1E I think there was an optional rule for a background like feature that granted special features similar to skills. None of them were tied to being a rogue (thief). Basically they were only 'skill monkeys' for one edition.

How I see the classes is:

Fighter: master of weapons and armor and direct confrontation of skill on the battlefield and enduring pain and injury.

Rogue: master of deception. They use deception to bypass traps, sneak around, or trick or surprise enemies to deal massive damage.

Wizard: master of the arcane arts, book reading thinker with a lot of knowledge and worldly wisdom. Overcomes obstacles and enemies with clever uses of magical effects.

Cleric/paladin: master of religion. holy warrior. armored holy knight. Overcomes obstacles through following a code and being blessed for it with miracles. Trained in weapons and armor, but not to the extent of the fighter.

Wild Mage: a class of Wizard that randomly changes spells in order to tweak their power. They trade the stability of the wizard's magic for a chance to increase the power of their spells. (I prefer the 4E Wild Sorcerer to the 3E wild mage personally)

[Angelalex242]

Well, ideally, the balance of power should be thus:

Paladin vs. Evil Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian=Paladin wins
Paladin vs. Neutral or Good Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian=Paladin loses

At least, when I homebrew up Paladins myself, I like to make sure they can make even evil wizards and clerics and druids cry for their mommies, but remain somewhat inadequate against neutral versions of the exact same character.

It takes a lot to make an evil T1 class cry for their mommy, but my variants tend to have enough power to do exactly that.

[erikun]

What does a Warrior represent to you?
A warrior is someone who relies on their martial skills. They could be just a mercenary who is a sword for hire, or a samurai who excels focused knowledge on one skill, or the weapon master with a golfbag of weapons and the ability to use them all, or the tactician who uses their knowledge to win battles.

Barbarians/berserkers tend to rely on their strength to overcome challenges. Rather than learning and practicing fancy swordplay, they focus on smashing hard enough to get through any sorts of defenses. Paladins are frequently a sort of warrior, although while others focus more on their marial skills, the paladin focuses instead on their peity and relies on basically divine intervention to aid them when needed.

"Rogues" as they're known in D&D tend to focus more on non-combat skills. It's a bit harder to categorize as the classes tend to be broad and unrelated except for that. Most D&D rogues/thieves tend to be sneaky and stealthy characters, with skills focused on hiding and surprise attacks and the occasional other illegal activity. Characters like bards tend to be party faces, with more skills in the social realm. Rangers tend to have skills more towards those of scouts, focused both on stealth and detection and skirmish combat.

[Fwiffo86]

This is great stuff guys. Thanks! I did just want opinions of Warriors first. But since the heart of a forum is tangents, lets just roll with it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Piddly squat mostly.

I don't care about the fluff of a class because I don't allow the fluff itself to limit how I envision my character. It would be like saying a scientist has to be a guy in a lab coat that is around chemicals all day... When in fact my coworker is a scientist who essentially hikes in the woods every day for the sake of biology. She is still a scientist just not the type most people think of when you hear scientist.

If I made a specific class I would start with fluff and make the mechanics for it. However if someone else wanted to use those mechanics for completely different fluff, then more power to them.

Because although mechanics and fluff are tied together, it doesn't mean the same mechanics can't have different fluff. Think of it more like an open relationship rather than a monogamous marriage. It isn't fluff A with mechanics B but rather mechanics B with Fluff A and B.

A barbarian and a fighter can both be warriors. A magic user could be a warrior. A non-caster (mechanics, take rage for example) could be refluffed as a caster. Heck, rage a divine might essentially have the same mechanics. X times per day increase your accuracy and damage. You could easily refluffed the barbarian as a caster.

So yeah I love some classes for their fluff but I play classes for their mechanics not for what they are called or some other preconceived notion about them.

:smallsmile:

[DungeonDelver]

I consider warrior classes to be divided by archetype. What literary figures would be represented by which classes?

Barbarian: Wild folk. Survivors in nature, naturally tough. Helpless in an urban environment, but more than adequate in nature. Second only to the ranger in ability to survive in the wilderness. A barbarian's most important mental attribute should probably be Wisdom. Intuitive, observant, in tune with their surroundings. In battle they favor lighter armors. A barbarian won't know what honorifics to use for which noble titles, but they can tell you which mushrooms are safe to eat.

Paladin: Honorable, strong willed, natural leaders. They're the opposite of the barbarian. Know how to talk to people, lead with force of personality. A paladin's word is more valuable than his life. The paladin does the least damage of the dedicated warrior classes on average, but makes up for it with potent passive defenses and restorative powers. When presented with an evil foe, though, their damage meets or exceeds their fellow warriors. Their most important mental ability score should probably be charisma. Powerful force of personality, the sort of honest personality that people gravitate to. Paladins favor the heaviest armor they can find.

Fighters: Almost everyone else. The master swordsman who was taught at the finest school. The self-taught street thug. Both of these guys are fighters. The fighter shave access to skills that let him thrive as the go to warrior in any environment. Whether he's a cold-hearted mercenary or a dedicated, disciplined martial artist. The fighter should be a master of whatever combat style they favor, and more than capable of adapting if it becomes necessary. The best swordsman in the world is a fighter, so is the best archer. When they're not fighting, however, they should be able to make their way in the world. For most fighters, the most important mental score should either be intelligence, or wisdom. Intelligence if they're cunning, careful, and learned through study. Wisdom if they relied on intuition and talent to learn. The fighter can be the scholar of combat, the master of tactics both small and grand, from the skirmish to the battlefield. The fighter can also be the streetwise mercenary, occasionally using stealth, trickery and clever positioning to win fights.

[Lokiare]

For me classes are defined by how they go about things.

Fighters: straight forward, courage
Rogues: deceptive, clever
Wizards: knowledge, smart
Clerics: supportive, wise

[2E Phoinex]

I know this is a totally lame response, but I really like the 2nd Edition DMG's "Adventurers in Society" section of the "Classes" chapter. (pg. 17-20 if you have it handy) The descriptions for each class and what role it plays seems to capture a lot of the thoughts going on in this discussion; in addition, since it's straight from core 2nd edition, it probably fits in with the bare-bones archetype your looking for.

I could have posted my own thoughts on the question, but I know that they mirror this section of the 2e DMG in many ways so I figured I should just point to what has been written all ready.

[StabbityRabbit]

Any warrior class represents a person who is beyond being just good at fighting. It represents someone who goes charging in when others would go running out. Somebody who is willing to risk their life every day for their cause. Anyone who with only their trusty weapon by their side can take down an ogre single handed. A person who could stare death in the eye, and say with full confidence "Not today."

I may have gone a little overboard with the flavor text, but I think it gets the idea across. Plus with my preferred definition you can easily define warrior classes by how and why they fill the above flavor text. For example:

Barbarian: The How: by being the biggest and baddest monster on the battlefield. The Why: So they can stop restraining the animalistic fury inside, even if only for a little.

Anyway those are my thoughts on warrior classes.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

For me classes are defined by how they go about things.

Fighters: straight forward, courage
Rogues: deceptive, clever
Wizards: knowledge, smart
Clerics: supportive, wise

This isn't an attack, I'm just curious why you of all people think this way. You usually think differently than others after all.

Now, does the wizard have to cast spells? Does the rogue have to be sneaky and a trap expert? Must they fall into niche roles? Or can a guy who doesn't cast spells be a wizard if he augments his body in other ways?

If a wizard focuses on self transmutation spells in order to be a great melee power house, what exactly would the difference be between that and a Barbarian (i would use the fighter but they are pretty bland except for 4e, nothing that really sets them apart... Not sure what they will do in 5e with them) who uses rage?

That wizard and barbarian are both straight forward and courageous. Hell I would say the little wizard is even more courageous since he has less HP. If his defenses don't hold up then he is a goner. It isn't very smart to get into melee with that little HP.

There was a build, well a character concept, that had a barbarian think he was a wizard or cleric. The player played it off that way too. He was a mighty caster capable of using spells such as "inflict light wounds" (normal attack), inflict moderate wounds (power attack) and inflict serious wounds (charging power attack).He was so great that he never failed to cast defensively!

So does each class or archetype really need to be strictly defined or have a set niche? You could end up vastly limiting yourself in avfantasy TTRPG game.

[pwykersotz]

SpawnOfMorbo, consider for a moment HOW these individuals came by their power. Their archetype is not to say they cannot be something else, but rather that a person who went through that training is likely to have the attributes that the training requires.

A warrior trains with weapons. In theory, this involved at least a few live practices. They need to learn to overcome their fear of being hit in order to properly engage the enemy. The Rogue and Wizard have no such requirement. They COULD have it, but it isn't something the training focuses on. Hence, courage and bravery are traditionally associated with warriors.

It's not to limit outside the box thinking, but to provide a starting point if you are floundering for one.

[rlc]

A warrior is basically someone who fights, preferably with martial means.
For specific classes, i guess i agree with what seems to be the majority.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

SpawnOfMorbo, consider for a moment HOW these individuals came by their power. Their archetype is not to say they cannot be something else, but rather that a person who went through that training is likely to have the attributes that the training requires.

A warrior trains with weapons. In theory, this involved at least a few live practices. They need to learn to overcome their fear of being hit in order to properly engage the enemy. The Rogue and Wizard have no such requirement. They COULD have it, but it isn't something the training focuses on. Hence, courage and bravery are traditionally associated with warriors.

It's not to limit outside the box thinking, but to provide a starting point if you are floundering for one.

But sadly, these are all things that end up limiting and restraining thoughts on class design.

Why can't a warrior be a yellow bellied weasle who happens to be great with a sword? Heck, with low will saves most 3.5 Fighters are chicken.

A wizard has to overcome the fear of their spells blowing a hole into reality (or their face), why aren't they fearless?

A rogue has to learn to disarm traps (well not all rogues), why aren't they fearless? One wrong move and they lose an arm or a face... Or they had to sneak into a heavily guarded castle and steal something... Are they not being brave in the face of danger? If they get caught, off with their head.

Things like courage and bravery isn't about the class, but about the character. We shouldn't mix character traits with class traits. When you mix character and class traits you get bad results.

Let people fluff their own character, leave classes to be mechanics.

[pwykersotz]

But sadly, these are all things that end up limiting and restraining thoughts on class design.

Why can't a warrior be a yellow bellied weasle who happens to be great with a sword? Heck, with low will saves most 3.5 Fighters are chicken.

A wizard has to overcome the fear of their spells blowing a hole into reality (or their face), why aren't they fearless?

A rogue has to learn to disarm traps (well not all rogues), why aren't they fearless? One wrong move and they lose an arm or a face... Or they had to sneak into a heavily guarded castle and steal something... Are they not being brave in the face of danger? If they get caught, off with their head.

Things like courage and bravery isn't about the class, but about the character. We shouldn't mix character traits with class traits. When you mix character and class traits you get bad results.

Let people fluff their own character, leave classes to be mechanics.

I fully agree. People are free to come up with whatever they like. But archetypes provide a baseline if you're having trouble. They are pretty much useless except as a launching platform if you are readily able to create your character. But there are a lot of people who aren't, or who want to play a stereotype.

You seem to have no 'default' setting for any of these classes, and that can be fun and even admirable. But it's also fun to have the expectations, if only to watch them be subverted every once in a while.

[Lokiare]

Remove the courage part of my Fighter response and replace with "straight forward confrontation of enemies and problems".

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Remove the courage part of my Fighter response and replace with "straight forward confrontation of enemies and problems".

I think that is perhaps even worse.

That leads to a linear Fighter with no tactics except to move and hit things. Every class should have ways to work outside the box and allow players to implement their ideas. There has been many times where a player would set up a plan and then realize that it was impossible to implement because of the horrible chassis of the class.

No matter what edition I tend to play Fighters with using tactics. If you give the fighter the option of using tactics within its class then I can use that class and people who don't want to use tactics (move n smash) can use that Fighter too.

We have exploration, social, and battle as the main three areas of D&D. Social is a lot smaller area than the other two, in any edition of d&d and the easiest to help classes.

Why not, instead of throwing character fluff at classes and then not having the mechanics to back it up... We make mechanics for each class and allow players to throw fluff at them.

I'm just not a fan of forcing fluff onto a PC. You then have every fighter or every wizard being the same within each class. This is also why I hate alignment restrictions for classes, are you really telling me that someone chaotic couldn't steal or copy a Monk's techniques and make them their own?

Character Traits =/= Class Traits

[Adamo Veritas]

I usually think of a class as way to define HOW a character acts/fights. Not WHY (motivation) or WHAT (the act), but HOW (the mechanism by which they act/fight).

Fighters depend on physical skill to. Either raw strength to deal damage, high dexterity to aim projectiles or place the blade well, or straight out toughness to bear the brunt of attacks. These can also be utilized in role playing by using athleticism to influence others, or military knowledge to command.

Rogues utilize indirect skills that, unlike the fighter, are not the best up in an enemies face. Sneak attack, pickpocketing, and disarming traps are ways to be of use out of combat, but can influence combat indirectly. If a rogue was a pure damage dealer, I would consider them more fighter.

Clerics can be thought of as the glue for a party. Like 4E categorized them as Leaders, they have a focus or vision of adventuring influenced by a divine power. War clerics help the party in combat, healers heal, and many other types of clerics have different focuses, and this makes them flexible. Even if they only heal, they decide who is healed, the ones in combat, the one springing a trap, or the one in a contest of will with BoVD.

Wizards are truly the masters of flexibility. They use the mystic power to do whatever they want. I like the idea mentioned before of a magic user who buffs themselves. They provide an intangible edge, or sometimes a straight up ranged damage dealing spell.

Any class can have a character twist that drives it any direction. Some classes provide that direction, but the four "base" classes allow room for anything.