Various role-playing RPG game stuff not deserving its own thread

[maidenhaver]

It sounds like you guys are implying that soldiers would change which side they were fighting for if the other side gave them more money. I don't believe most veterans would have done that. Receiving some money to feed your family doesn't make military service less honorable.

Warriors do it for the love of the sport, there are soldiers that are warriors but not all soldiers are warriors.

"The true soldier had learned to act in the abyss, to carry fear as his burden. It did not stop him." - Jünger. A warrior doesn't fear: he's mad and looks for fights, like a barbarian. A soldier can learn to overcome fear and win courage, but a warrior could be too stupid to know what fear is. A warrior who learns fear and what to do with it is a great man. How's that?

Both could be fighters, but most warriors are barbs.

[roldet]

I hate the word "fighter" in crpgs, it is a mechanical/soulless term akin to "body types" and it reminds me of street urchins, boxers and slums (i.e. Street Fighter). Correct term should be "warrior" which conveys a sense of grace and discipline. DD,BG3, POE, Pathfinder.. every game use that ****

To add on to this post, soulful term is "priest" not "cleric".

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I hate the word "fighter" in crpgs, it is a mechanical/soulless term akin to "body types" and it reminds me of street urchins, boxers and slums (i.e. Street Fighter). Correct term should be "warrior" which conveys a sense of grace and discipline. DD,BG3, POE, Pathfinder.. every game use that ****

To add on to this post, soulful term is "priest" not "cleric".

A priest means that you are an intercessor who performs sacrifices and makes contact with God on behalf of people who have been separated from Him. That does not describe the overwhelming vast majority of what RPG "priests" do. They just throw out yellow sparkles, maybe shout the name of some (usually pagan flavored) "god", but do not actually do any intercession for people.

Something like White Mage is a much better descriptor, as you are effectively a wizard who just throws out yellow sparkles, but flavored a certain way. There is no meaningful priestly component here.

[rusty_shackleford]

I liked that it was termed 'necromantic white' in arcanum

[UltraFan123]

I hate the word "fighter" in crpgs, it is a mechanical/soulless term akin to "body types" and it reminds me of street urchins, boxers and slums (i.e. Street Fighter). Correct term should be "warrior" which conveys a sense of grace and discipline. DD,BG3, POE, Pathfinder.. every game use that ****

To add on to this post, soulful term is "priest" not "cleric".

A priest means that you are an intercessor who performs sacrifices and makes contact with God on behalf of people who have been separated from Him. That does not describe the overwhelming vast majority of what RPG "priests" do. They just throw out yellow sparkles, maybe shout the name of some (usually pagan flavored) "god", but do not actually do any intercession for people.

Something like White Mage is a much better descriptor, as you are effectively a wizard who just throws out yellow sparkles, but flavored a certain way. There is no meaningful priestly component here.

I do believe that it's important to distinguish the Western RPG cleric stereotype from the J-RPG cleric stereotype.

Japanese RPGs usually show clerics as what you describe; sometimes squishy wizards that do "divine magic" instead of arcane stuff. While the Western clerics are basically melee combatants that can wear the heaviest armor while healing and banishing low-level undead.

3.5 edition clerics - and druids - in particular could be ridiculously overpowered because they have no inherent "weakness" like how wizards/sorcerers are powerful but weak to melee, and how fighters/barbarians are strong at melee but got no magic.

So J-RPGs have White Mages while DnD-inspired RPGs have warriors who can heal, buff, and revive just as good as White Mages.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Western clerics are basically melee combatants that can wear the heaviest armor while healing and banishing low-level undead.

That's a paladin.

[UltraFan123]

Western clerics are basically melee combatants that can wear the heaviest armor while healing and banishing low-level undead.

That's a paladin.

Well yeah, paladins can do that, but high-level clerics can cast antimagic fields to render enemy spellcasters powerless and summon divine hosts of angelic armies, stuff that paladins can't do.

Notoriously enough, paladins couldn't revive the dead no matter how high their level, either. Maybe in some editions they could, but not in the ones I'm familiar with.

[rusty_shackleford]

Western clerics are basically melee combatants that can wear the heaviest armor while healing and banishing low-level undead.

That's a paladin.

Actually the cleric was based losely on Bishop Odo, brother of Duke William of Normandy, the fictitional Friar Tuck, and a religious proscription against the shedding of blood.

The paladin was likewise loosely drawn from the Paladins of Charlemagne and the Code of Chivalry.

Changes in both archetypes were mandated by the game system for which they were designed. As they two are quite different archetypes, criticism of these classes on grounds of similarity is fatuois. The purpose of each class in the campaign milieu is quite different.

[rusty_shackleford]

Clerics bonk people on the head, priests wear robes.

[roldet]

A priest means that you are an intercessor who performs sacrifices and makes contact with God on behalf of people who have been separated from Him. That does not describe the overwhelming vast majority of what RPG "priests" do. They just throw out yellow sparkles, maybe shout the name of some (usually pagan flavored) "god", but do not actually do any intercession for people.

Something like White Mage is a much better descriptor, as you are effectively a wizard who just throws out yellow sparkles, but flavored a certain way. There is no meaningful priestly component here.

Well i think i am biased towards these words ("warrior"/"priest"/"shaman" etc.) because of MMOs i have wasted years had them . Equivalent words seem artificial.

[Stack of Turtles]

A priest means that you are an intercessor who performs sacrifices and makes contact with God on behalf of people who have been separated from Him. That does not describe the overwhelming vast majority of what RPG "priests" do. They just throw out yellow sparkles, maybe shout the name of some (usually pagan flavored) "god", but do not actually do any intercession for people.

Something like White Mage is a much better descriptor, as you are effectively a wizard who just throws out yellow sparkles, but flavored a certain way. There is no meaningful priestly component here.

Well i think i am biased towards these words ("warrior"/"priest"/"shaman" etc.) because of MMOs i have wasted years had them . Equivalent words seem artificial.

You honestly shouldn't listen to Val on this because he only plays weebslop, so he doesn't know the words real games use.

[Lhynn]

[rusty_shackleford]

Guy sounds like he's ai idk if he is but he should try not being monotone

[Lhynn]

Guy sounds like he's ai idk if he is but he should try not being monotone

The voice is monotone, yeah, but the script wasnt made by one, I can always tell when AI wrote something these days. I find the clear delivery to be a plus, especially since he levies very harsh criticism in his videos, where an emotional tone has a harder time selling such arguments.

[rusty_shackleford]

Guy sounds like he's ai idk if he is but he should try not being monotone

The voice is monotone, yeah, but the script wasnt made by one, I can always tell when AI wrote something these days. I find the clear delivery to be a plus, especially since he levies very harsh criticism in his videos, where an emotional tone has a harder time selling such arguments.

His argument is really that libtard games suck

[maidenhaver]

Guy sounds like he's ai idk if he is but he should try not being monotone

Just say:

"He-he-hey youtubers, iiiTs YoUr BOy [quirky jokey funnyman]."

In your head.

[Cipher]

I would use these if I was designing an RPG:

Soldier (Fighter)
Archer (Ranger)
Scout (Rogue)
Commander (4e Warlord)

I'd also find a way to work in some kind of Explorer or Planestrider class and a Geomancer class to make terrain a more important element.

The thing is that those terms are less generic and more specific than the current options.

Soldier means the character has to have been part of an organized military or that he is of a professional military social class, such as a Knight, a Noble or in Japan a Bushi. Whereas an old germanic or scandinavian "warrior" or "fighter" wouldn't necessarily be so. Sure, Jarls would fit, but freemen, that is Karls, could also bear arms when going viking.

Archer means the Ranger is a missile/ranged element, when the classic D&D Ranger, since its a knock off of Aragorn and the Dunedain, is supposed to also use melee, to the point that they get free 2 weapon fighting specialization in AD&D. Not as problematic, but it also strips the wilderness survival skills that are also very much associated with the class. An Archer is a professional soldier that just so happens to use bows/crossbows. A "ranged Fighter" if you will.

Scout also has the implication of a specific role. A thief that is a street urchin crook that pick pockets change from pigeons wouldn't fit the definition of a scout. "Scout" only really accounts for the trap detecting skills associated with the archetype.

Commander is a specific military rank. This one I don't mind as much, a Warrior-King would also lead from the front and would be "in command" of his army. And a Captain of a company of mercenaries would also be "in command" of the troops in combat.

I think "Explorer" actually would fit better with Ranger than "Archer".

[rusty_shackleford]

Ranger implying archer really steams my beans. One of the few games that didn't do this is Everquest.

[maidenhaver]

Rangers should be woodsy paladins.

[UltraFan123]

The funniest thing is that one of the most iconic DnD characters of all time, Drizzt, is a two-weapons melee ranger. Complete with an animal companion.

Yet the idea of a ranger being a melee combatant never became as popular as rangers beings archers.

[Oyster Sauce]

It's their own fault for not being called meleeers

[Tangerine]

meleeers

Closers

[logincrash]

Ranger = uses a ranged weapon
Simple as.

[Roguey]

ranger(n.)

late 14c. (early 14c. in surnames), "gamekeeper, sworn officer of a forest whose work is to walk through it and protect it," agent noun from range (v.). Attested from 1590s in the general sense of "a rover, a wanderer;" from 1660s in the sense of "man (often mounted) who polices an area." The elite U.S. combat unit is so called from 1942 (organized 1941).

Wandering armed law enforcement of the forest.

[J1M]

I don't really enjoy the nature or criminal backgrounds, so as @Cipher said, stripping those out was intentional.

[J1M]

Medieval sheriff could be a cool class idea, but I don't know what it would be called or how it would be different than a fighter.

[Cipher]

I don't really enjoy the nature or criminal backgrounds, so as @Cipher said, stripping those out was intentional.

I don't like criminal/evil characters, as well. But, I was pointing out why most games prefer the more generic names as those cover a larger amount of archetypes/roles.

Also, if Ranger doesn't have the "nature" stuff, then how is it different as an Archer than an Scout? This was the reason for my comment, Archer and Scout are essentially soldiers as well, just in different roles. I am not hating your nomenclature, just pointing out that those names all have the same military connotation, Soldier/Man-at-Arms, Archer, Scout and Commander are all basically roles a soldier would perform depending on his rank and purpose/specialization.

I like it, but that only fits a specific tabletop game where the players are soldiers and so all classes reflect that. Outside of the setting of "all players are members of the military" the names start to not fit properly into many archetypes and so that's why most RPGs and videogames that use classes go for the more broad and generic names.

[J1M]

I don't really enjoy the nature or criminal backgrounds, so as @Cipher said, stripping those out was intentional.

I don't like criminal/evil characters, as well. But, I was pointing out why most games prefer the more generic names as those cover a larger amount of archetypes/roles.

Also, if Ranger doesn't have the "nature" stuff, then how is it different as an Archer than an Scout? This was the reason for my comment, Archer and Scout are essentially soldiers as well, just in different roles. I am not hating your nomenclature, just pointing out that those names all have the same military connotation, Soldier/Man-at-Arms, Archer, Scout and Commander are all basically roles a soldier would perform depending on his rank and purpose/specialization.

I like it, but that only fits a specific tabletop game where the players are soldiers and so all classes reflect that. Outside of the setting of "all players are members of the military" the names start to not fit properly into many archetypes and so that's why most RPGs and videogames that use classes go for the more broad and generic names.

Yes, and I agree with what you said.

[Rand]

I never understood why rangers and paladins were a base class. And it bugged me.
I liked it in 3rd edition where they made "prestige" classes, and there were alternative prestige class rules for upgrading fighters into them.
It makes sense. You start off with the martial basics, then a few levels up, you get your specialized class things. Wilderness scout **** for rangers and priestly magic for paladins.

[UltraFan123]

I never understood why rangers and paladins were a base class. And it bugged me.
I liked it in 3rd edition where they made "prestige" classes, and there were alternative prestige class rules for upgrading fighters into them.
It makes sense. You start off with the martial basics, then a few levels up, you get your specialized class things. Wilderness scout **** for rangers and priestly magic for paladins.

Yep yep.

The sourcebook was called "Unearthed Arcana" and featured the paladin, ranger, and bard as prestigious character classes.

By making those 3 professions into prcs, then you could choose if you wanted to lean more into combat or more into magic depending on how you built your character.

Not to mention that "Unearthed Arcana" had plenty of very good ideas overall.