Martial classes have never really been my favorite in D&D. If I'm playing a fantasy game, I'd prefer to be slightly more fantastic than a simple warrior. But that's just me. In recent memory, I've played a "lazy" warlord in a "hobbit" game (Frondo Maggins, a do-nothing hobbit with a heart of gold), and a half-orc assassin in service to the wizards' guild in a more serious game. I'm not sure why these classes, as a whole, don't appeal to me that much. I guess I just prefer casters.
I'm not sure how dull it was to play fighters in earlier editions. I understand the criticism that fighters just whump things, but in earlier editions there were still rules (and house rules) for disarming, overbearing, grappling, and other maneuvers. Once you hit Combat and Tactics in second edition there were plenty of martial options to use, and compared to wizards they were probably relatively balanced. Maybe I'll give it a try once I get back to civilization.
As I read over some old and new iterations of the game (just bought a copy of Adventurer Conqueror King recently, I'll review that later), I'm struck by the recent discussions of how difficult it is to make a fighter class. This is because the fighter is a really broad archetype. In a game with many different classes though (instead of just one customizeable Warrior class), I think we could use about four warriors and four(ish) experts. I've got a clearer picture of the martial warriors than the experts though.
Depending on how the rules handle some system of adding feats or skills, the captain might be the most get-rid-able class on that list. The question is, should a fighter class be able to put all of his choices into leadership and tactics? If not, then some sort of a captain, marshal, warlord, or noble seems appropriate for a class.
The "expert" martial classes are the dudes who don't focus almost exclusively on combat. I'm a bit undecided for the martial non-warriors, but I think four classes covers a lot of ground again. There's room for improvement still, perhaps.
Expert:
I had another class penciled in here: Professional. That's because I'm interested in some additional sage, expert, or merchant class, but they're less likely to be of the adventuring type. This is where one might expect to see the noble, blacksmith, sage or merchant. But why are these adventures? What sort of combat role does a sage, merchant, noble, or blacksmith necessarily play? How about in terms of exploration, interaction, or ruling a domain? Anything that's really class-worthy needs to have some defined combat role and a bit of power in the other aspects of the game.
The problem with my selection of archetypes for the expert group of classes is that the rogue is a bit broad. You can imagine a system where backstabbing, poison use, inspirational powers, a small selection of spells, scouting, tracking, or a variety of urban and natural lores are all options. Nice, but then there's no much of a need for these specific classes: it could all be part of one rogue package (or maybe Rogue and Bard?). The mountebank archetype basically ditches the thief's backstab or sneak attack for the ability to dabble in spells or some more socially focused skills. But these are the types of options you want in your experts.
What of the monk? He probably fits into one of these two groups, but is also pretty psionic. That's right, I love how they categorized some Hindu or Buddhist religious ideas as psionic, rather than divine. So I'll deal with the monk later, though he really does belong here too. But is he more of a skillful expert class than a warrior? I'm not quite sure yet.
At any rate, these options might make me relatively happy to play a martial character, at least in terms of choices. I might still at least grab a ritual caster or multiclass option though.
I'm not sure how dull it was to play fighters in earlier editions. I understand the criticism that fighters just whump things, but in earlier editions there were still rules (and house rules) for disarming, overbearing, grappling, and other maneuvers. Once you hit Combat and Tactics in second edition there were plenty of martial options to use, and compared to wizards they were probably relatively balanced. Maybe I'll give it a try once I get back to civilization.
As I read over some old and new iterations of the game (just bought a copy of Adventurer Conqueror King recently, I'll review that later), I'm struck by the recent discussions of how difficult it is to make a fighter class. This is because the fighter is a really broad archetype. In a game with many different classes though (instead of just one customizeable Warrior class), I think we could use about four warriors and four(ish) experts. I've got a clearer picture of the martial warriors than the experts though.
- Fighter
- Paladin
- Berserker (Barbarian)
- Captain (Warlord)
Depending on how the rules handle some system of adding feats or skills, the captain might be the most get-rid-able class on that list. The question is, should a fighter class be able to put all of his choices into leadership and tactics? If not, then some sort of a captain, marshal, warlord, or noble seems appropriate for a class.
The "expert" martial classes are the dudes who don't focus almost exclusively on combat. I'm a bit undecided for the martial non-warriors, but I think four classes covers a lot of ground again. There's room for improvement still, perhaps.
Expert:
- Assassin
- Bard (minstrel, sage, skald, magician, mountebank)
- Ranger
- Rogue / mountebank
- Thief
I had another class penciled in here: Professional. That's because I'm interested in some additional sage, expert, or merchant class, but they're less likely to be of the adventuring type. This is where one might expect to see the noble, blacksmith, sage or merchant. But why are these adventures? What sort of combat role does a sage, merchant, noble, or blacksmith necessarily play? How about in terms of exploration, interaction, or ruling a domain? Anything that's really class-worthy needs to have some defined combat role and a bit of power in the other aspects of the game.
The problem with my selection of archetypes for the expert group of classes is that the rogue is a bit broad. You can imagine a system where backstabbing, poison use, inspirational powers, a small selection of spells, scouting, tracking, or a variety of urban and natural lores are all options. Nice, but then there's no much of a need for these specific classes: it could all be part of one rogue package (or maybe Rogue and Bard?). The mountebank archetype basically ditches the thief's backstab or sneak attack for the ability to dabble in spells or some more socially focused skills. But these are the types of options you want in your experts.
What of the monk? He probably fits into one of these two groups, but is also pretty psionic. That's right, I love how they categorized some Hindu or Buddhist religious ideas as psionic, rather than divine. So I'll deal with the monk later, though he really does belong here too. But is he more of a skillful expert class than a warrior? I'm not quite sure yet.
At any rate, these options might make me relatively happy to play a martial character, at least in terms of choices. I might still at least grab a ritual caster or multiclass option though.
No comments:
Post a Comment