With 4E we have each class broken down by its role in the party (Striker, Controller, Defender, Leader) and by power source (Martial, Primal, Psionic, Arcane, Divine, etc). What about looking at each character class in a more organic way? More of a flavor? Use more of the classic images as descriptors found in books, myths, legends, and history.
When describing a character class to a new player rather than reciting a party role and and power source why not use a more colorful description?
Avenger: Holy Slayer, Church Enforcer, Inquisitor
Cleric: Priest, Pastor, Father
Invoker: Prophet, Seer
Paladin: Crusader of the Faith, Temple Knight
Fighter: Soldier, Mercenary, Guard
Warlord: Marshal, General, Commander
Ranger: Scout, Bounty Hunter, Huntsman, Kennel Master/ Falconer
Rogue: Swashbuckler, Thief, Thug
Wizard: Mage, Hedgemage, Scholar
Warlock: Soulbound
Bard: Entertainer, Skald, Mountebank, Jester
Sorcerer: Bloodmagi
Barbarian: Berserk, Savage
Shaman: Hogan, Bokor, Spirit Talker
Druid: Lawgiver, Historian
Warden: Woodsman
Monk: Ascetic, Mendicant
I'd like to see your ideas on some of these classes. I know a few are a little weak (The Warden, Warlock, and Sorcerer come to mind).
Check out this thread for many, many examples:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Well, each class has a good bit of flavor text in its description, plus examples of character background that suggest possible character concepts that would work well with that class.
I'm not sure why you say some classes are weaker than others. There are a wide variety of opinions on that subject and for every class you'll find some people who consider it weak, others who think its just about in line with the other classes, and others who think it is over powered. I think its reasonable to say that there is not a huge disparity between any of the classes. Certain specific builds of certain classes are known to be quite good at specific things. There are one or two cases where WotC has used errata to refine a specific build like BRV and Tempest fighters. Even then there hasn't been a whole lot of agreement on whether they were over powered or not. Many DMs considered pre-errata BRV to be a bit out of hand, but not all by any means and they certainly had their weak points. The errata seems to have been at least as much intended to bring them closer to implementing a specific character concept well than in nerfing them.
Some of those are inaccurate, though. Anybody of any class can be a mercenary or bounty hunter, for example. A monk doesn't have to be ascetic or a mendicant (beggar, for people like me who had to look the word up). Barbarians don't have to be berserkers or savages. You're being more restrictive with that list, not less.
I'm not sure why you say some classes are weaker than others.
I think he meant that the description/phrase he had for the classes were weak, not the classes themselves, mechanically.
I'd also like to point out that the Rogue can be a scout, a spy, an assassin or a secret operative. It irritates me that Rogues are automatically played as thieves.
I think he meant that the description/phrase he had for the classes were weak, not the classes themselves, mechanically.
Ah, yes, that makes sense.
I tend to agree though that these proposed descriptions aren't necessarily more accurate. A lot of people seem to be having problems already getting past the most obvious steriotypical view of the classes. Their fluff certainly can be a handy aid for players coming into the game without a very clear idea about what they want to play or which class is best for a fairly classic character. On the other hand they seem to be quite an impediment to those who already have a pretty well defined vision of what they want the character to do. I mean how many times a week do the boards get yet another thread by someone who's irate because fighters aren't really designed to use ranged weapons? "Oh, but I can't play a ranger because the fluff says I'm a guy that wanders in the wilderness". Sigh.
How about this list:
Swordmage: Librarian
Cleric and Bard: Paladin
Warlord: Merchant, Ruffian
(beastmaster) Ranger: Fugitive
Fighter: Layabout
That would be most of a family of dragonborn I play in LFR. Class offers some mechanical restrictions, but fluff is quite mutable.
> a spy, an assassin or a secret operative. It irritates
> me that Rogues are automatically played as thieves.
Or an adventurous archaeologist. (Indiana Jones is cited as an archetypal rogue in several D&D books.)
perhaps perversely, i'm engaged in a fun discussion about how indy's actually a bard. :>
perhaps perversely, i'm engaged in a fun discussion about how indy's actually a bard. :>
I could kind of see bard. Rogue definitely works too though.
well, the added fun in that discussion is that these are 3.x players whose hate for bards knows no bounds. :D
Some of those are inaccurate, though. Anybody of any class can be a mercenary or bounty hunter, for example. A monk doesn't have to be ascetic or a mendicant (beggar, for people like me who had to look the word up). Barbarians don't have to be berserkers or savages. You're being more restrictive with that list, not less.
Okay, can you make some other suggestions?
perhaps perversely, i'm engaged in a fun discussion about how indy's actually a bard. :>
I could kind of see bard. Rogue definitely works too though.
Indiana's definitely a Temple Raider of Olidammara 
class does not equal job. I could have a dark pact warlock who worships the raven queen and preaches in her name. I could have a fighter who is a scout and sabatour. A warlord who is a proffessional gambler and coward (matt Cauthon from wheel of time anyone?) A ranger who becomes captain of a special forces type unit. A warlock who happens to be a military officer.
class does not equal job. I could have a dark pact warlock who worships the raven queen and preaches in her name. I could have a fighter who is a scout and sabatour. A warlord who is a proffessional gambler and coward (matt Cauthon from wheel of time anyone?) A ranger who becomes captain of a special forces type unit. A warlock who happens to be a military officer.
This. Describing a class by profession is really more restrictive than describing it by power type and primary role; any given profession is is flavor text that is often applicable to most classes (depending on build). Role and power type go a long way towards describing what it is they do and roughly how they do it (which is what the different classes are to begin with...a set of mechanics for skills and how they fight).
I do take issue calling Mattrim Cauthon a coward though!...or maybe it's just been too long since I've read any of those books.
Indeed. Class is a mechanical term and as such, I use it to describe mechanics. If I want to describe my job, I use roleplay and character background.
If anyone asks, my character says he's an archivist, because going around telling the rabble that he's a bloody warlock will bring out the angry mobs with torches and pitchforks. (Actually, he could give a squat about torches -- he's a tiefling.)
That's character background, and a bit of campaign background as well. Useful information for role-playing, etc.
But there comes a time when he has to use all that arcane knowledge he's acquired for, shall we say, self-defense. Then it becomes rather important to understand exactly what the term arcane striker/controller means, in the context of game mechanics.
In short, I use a more "flavorful" description in addition to, not instead of, my character's power source/role designation. (And another false dichotomy in gaming bites the dust....)
PtM
Fighter: Former Mercenary, Former Guard, Former Bandit.
Martial Power, Page 16.
I'd also like to point out that the Rogue can be a scout, a spy, an assassin or a secret operative. It irritates me that Rogues are automatically played as thieves.
Seconded. My thieves/rouges are almost always played as either scouts or trap-removal experts.
It's just too bad that we can't convince one of our players of that. He insists that all rogues are thieves who love to steal form the party, all wizards must be self-serving power-mongers, etc. He even goes so far as to tell the party's rogue (who serves as the party's scout and is quite selfless and giving) that he's playing his character wrong but jumps down the throat of anyone who suggests that his wizard might be better off not running into melee at every opportunity. /rant
If anyone asks, my character says he's an archivist, because going around telling the rabble that he's a bloody warlock will bring out the angry mobs with torches and pitchforks. (Actually, he could give a squat about torches -- he's a tiefling.)
That's character background, and a bit of campaign background as well. Useful information for role-playing, etc.
But there comes a time when he has to use all that arcane knowledge he's acquired for, shall we say, self-defense. Then it becomes rather important to understand exactly what the term arcane striker/controller means, in the context of game mechanics.
In short, I use a more "flavorful" description in addition to, not instead of, my character's power source/role designation. (And another false dichotomy in gaming bites the dust....)
PtM
Mine always introduces herself as liutenant Tia in the army of Westend Arcane section. She makes no metnion of the dark pacts and powers she wields though she has no problem using said power. Heck I had an idea for a vestige lock who was a seer trying to avert disasters. The classes come with some flavour that you can use how ever you want, but nothing is stopping you from going outside that flavour.
As for Matt he does spend most of book six trying to avoid battles. He may not be a coward but he has a healthy respect for his own hide.
I'd also like to point out that the Rogue can be a scout, a spy, an assassin or a secret operative. It irritates me that Rogues are automatically played as thieves.
Seconded. My thieves/rouges are almost always played as either scouts or trap-removal experts.It's just too bad that we can't convince one of our players of that. He insists that all rogues are thieves who love to steal form the party, all wizards must be self-serving power-mongers, etc. He even goes so far as to tell the party's rogue (who serves as the party's scout and is quite selfless and giving) that he's playing his character wrong but jumps down the throat of anyone who suggests that his wizard might be better off not running into melee at every opportunity. /rant
Oh, man. You have my sympathies.