Or is it the Big Three?
Monte Cook seems to think so. Looking at Monte Cook's Numenera, 3 classes are available, the Glaive, Jack and Nano. Each of these are inspired by the Fighter, Rogue and Wizard specifically. The Fighter/Glaive is the warrior who dishes out and take the most punishment on the field of battle. The Rogue/Jack has a variety of useful skills which are important in exploration, subterfuge and other challenges outside of battle (some folks use the term "Skill Monkey"). The Wizard/Nano has a lot of limited use 'magic' which provides unique effects both in and out of battle. Essentially, the wizard is the character who has big powers with limited uses, thus providing bursts of utility.
Monte Cook understands 3rd edition D&D better than I do, for sure. He was one of the writers who wrote it, after all!
Interesting fact 1: not only did the Fighter always have the best access to armor and arms, but she also had the best saving throws too back in early editions (original and 2nd edition). Nowadays the rogue has better dex/reflex saves and the cleric better will saves, but back then the Fighter had all the best saves. The fighter really was meant to be the best in battle!
So the Cleric is really a mix between the Fighter and the Wizard, with a focus on support spells such as healing and buffs instead of damage and control. The cleric certainly has carved out his own niche as a healer and the designated party support, but in many ways the cleric is the original "gish" or fighter-mage hybrid.
Interesting fact 1: not only did the Fighter always have the best access to armor and arms, but she also had the best saving throws too back in early editions (original and 2nd edition). Nowadays the rogue has better dex/reflex saves and the cleric better will saves, but back then the Fighter had all the best saves. The fighter really was meant to be the best in battle!
So the Cleric is really a mix between the Fighter and the Wizard, with a focus on support spells such as healing and buffs instead of damage and control. The cleric certainly has carved out his own niche as a healer and the designated party support, but in many ways the cleric is the original "gish" or fighter-mage hybrid.
Interesting fact 2: In 3rd edition D&D, the Rogue had only a d6 hit dice, whereas the cleric has a d8. The cleric was also better armored and armed, and generally better in battle than the poor Rogue.
So we should use these three classes: Fighter, Rogue and Wizard (and maybe cleric) as the base for classless system right? Warrior, Skill monkey, and Limited-use magic-user?
So we should use these three classes: Fighter, Rogue and Wizard (and maybe cleric) as the base for classless system right? Warrior, Skill monkey, and Limited-use magic-user?
Well, maybe not. I have issues with assigning one character the role of "skill monkey".
Have you ever seen a tabletop session where the player controlling the fighter or barbarian is sitting around looking really bored while the rest of the players is engaged in non-combat activities? Such as talking to NPCs, figuring out a puzzle, maneuvering around the environment? Well, the game is specifically designed to give certain character classes little in the way of contributing during the exploration and interaction phases of the game. The biggest sinner in 5E is the frenzied barbarian, who becomes exhausted and thus has disadvantage on ability checks after going into a frenzy. He's specifically designed to be useless outside of combat!
I'll touch on this more in a blog post on "Sharing the limelight", but I think all player should be encouraged by the system to be alert and trying to find ways to contribute outside of combat. After all, modern D&D design allows all classes to contribute in combat. Do you remember what wizards were like in earlier editions when they didn't have at-will cantrips and a measly d4 hit dice? Wizards were essentially useless when they ran out of spells. If you had 7 combat encounters per day, most of the battles the wizard would be twiddling their thumbs or throwing inaccurate d4 darts. DARTS.
Have you ever seen a tabletop session where the player controlling the fighter or barbarian is sitting around looking really bored while the rest of the players is engaged in non-combat activities? Such as talking to NPCs, figuring out a puzzle, maneuvering around the environment? Well, the game is specifically designed to give certain character classes little in the way of contributing during the exploration and interaction phases of the game. The biggest sinner in 5E is the frenzied barbarian, who becomes exhausted and thus has disadvantage on ability checks after going into a frenzy. He's specifically designed to be useless outside of combat!
I'll touch on this more in a blog post on "Sharing the limelight", but I think all player should be encouraged by the system to be alert and trying to find ways to contribute outside of combat. After all, modern D&D design allows all classes to contribute in combat. Do you remember what wizards were like in earlier editions when they didn't have at-will cantrips and a measly d4 hit dice? Wizards were essentially useless when they ran out of spells. If you had 7 combat encounters per day, most of the battles the wizard would be twiddling their thumbs or throwing inaccurate d4 darts. DARTS.
Darts?! OMG @@
ReplyDeleteI like this idea. 13th Age got rid of the idea of Fighters having fewer skill points and Thieves having more. Everyone had the same amount.
ReplyDeleteJaded: Oh yes, darts. Wizards are still proficient in darts in 5E, but I can't imagine they're used often.
ReplyDeleteKai Lord: OMG I love your name on Blogger haha. I remember reading someone's lament that the Conan, whom D&D's barbarian is obviously based on, did all sorts of things outside of combat such as sneaking, setting traps, picking locks and the like. But the D&D barbarian is an idiot in comparison