By the time B/X was published, D&D was up to four primary classes and three race-classes (which were all warriors from their cultures) . Race-classes are worth their own post, so now I am going to focus on the the four primary classes.
In the oldest versions of the venerable game, there were actually only two classes. This is in the pre-published era. There was the fighting man and the magic user. The cleric was added when Mr. Gygax found he had written a monster that really needed a some divine power to overcome the challenge it offered (It was a vampire if you are wondering and it is why turning undead is a big deal). The thief was added later as an archetype to overcome dungeon challenges. Before that point any person used those skills, but there weren't really rules for them.
I bring up this brief history lesson for two reasons. First it shows that D&D didn't spring into existence in its finished state. It was, and remains to this day, a work in progress. Secondly, but related, it shows a history of adding what is needful for the campaign at hand. And both of those things are brought up to remind you that, though I am going to present an argument for Fighters, Thieves, Magic Users, and Clerics, there are other directions you can go if your game needs it. Filling the needs of the game (the story, the Players, and the DM) are why the rules are there; it is not the other way around.
For whatever reasons many older gamers are very entrenched in saying "THIS IS HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED", and the plant their flag in the soil of the edition they like. I get that to some extent, because many official changes feel very redundant when there was already a rule to cover the need if you were to tweak it just a little. (Also every time something official is added to a core book the players, with every good reason, feel they should have access to it. "Red-penning" the Players Handbook is a good way to alienate a lot of players, who feel very restricted by removals and rewrites.) Well, I am not inclined to shout but I have planted a flag myself in the B/X edition.
There are many reasons to run a D&D game. My primary reason is to entertain. After that my impulse is to enjoy some flexing of my creative muscle. I find if I put the second reason before the first I am really just novelizing. While I run OSR sandbox games, I am still here to entertain first. If the players feel hemmed in I am am not doing that right. So it is best to start with a rules set that covers what they will want. Yet every time you add something to the game it raises the complexity. So how can we give all the reasonable options without getting rule bloat?
This brings us back around to the title, because the four core are good for the primary function of D&D, a game about "dungeon" exploration and "dragon" fighting. No they don't cover every single adventurer archetype, but with some tweaking and variation, they cover most of them. Let's take them one at a time, and discuss their role in the game and some reasonable variations.
The Fighter is a stand up warrior who uses martial skills (as demonstrated by high HP and a good attack bonus), heavy armor, and a wide variety of weapons to handle combat oriented tasks. When you wander into a dungeon and invade a monsters house they may get grumpy about it, so a character that can tackle that head on is a must. The Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian are classic variations of Fighter, that give it a different flavor and slightly different roles while remaining a fighting forward class.
The Thief is a clever and sneaky fellow who has an expertise at stealth and mechanical devices, primarily traps and locks. They also have good listening skills and an ability to try to read anything. This is a troubleshooting character who helps overcome obstacles. While it is somewhat capable in combat it has lower HP than a fighter and weaker armor. Clever fighting is suggested, but as we already have a head on combat character that is reasonable. The Bard, Assassin, Scout, and Mountebank, and arguably Monk are good variations on Thief. Each stays focused on troubleshooting, but there is a change on the emphasis to handle different types of challenges.
The Magic User is another sort of trouble shooter. Its talents allow for non linear problem solving (invisibility), mass battle condition rearrangement (sleep spell or web), or just some great tenderizing of the biggest threats (FIREBALL!). Most DMs also allowed for some level or erudite expertise on the part of the MU, but it isn't really built into the rules. Magic-User can be spun to produce Sorcerers, Psionicist, Illusionist, Diviners, and Necromancers. All of these are still people who master a type of "magic" but they focus on different archetypes in doing so.
That leads us to the Cleric. The cleric is the back up warrior that fills the gaps, the back up spell caster who helps troubleshoot more specialized problems (locate object and turn undead both come to mind), and the primary healer. This class probably catches the most critique in D&D. It fills two rolls blandly and its primarily roll is arbitrarily restricted from other spell casters. Still thematically it fills a specific niche. It is the representative of the gods, while the arcane spell caster is a focused on knowledge for its own sake. That niche is import and and is very satisfying to many players. What is more having a backup of two out of three of the other roles isn't a bad idea. It helps when there is a man down, and it helps when a game group is a play shy of a full set. Variations on cleric are perhaps the easiest to envision, as every different godhead can give you a different view on the Cleric. Druids are a variation, but so are Runecaster's, some spins on the Witch, Lorekeepers, and Templars.
As you can see many other popular character rolls can be derived from the basic four classes.
It is worth pointing out, in closing, that the original four classes, and most of their variations, work best in the two main themes of Dungeons and Dragons: exploration and combat. D&D is an adventure game. It isn't a simulation, and it isn't a narrative game. Not that there isn't room for both in an adventure, but neither is the focus of the game. And that is ok.
If you changed that focus these classes would fall a bit short, but if you need a group of noble heroes to track a vampire to its lair, break in, kill his ghoul guards, rescue the mayor's daughter, kill the fiend, loot his house, and probably burn it on the way out, then I can suggest a group of Adventurers for you.
GM Hobs Game Musings Index
No comments:
Post a Comment