Why are barbarians a separate thing from fighters...

Why are barbarians a separate thing from fighters? Wouldn't it make more sense for barbarians to just be a subclass of fighter? As far as I can tell the only real thing that's different between a fighter and a barbarian is that the barbarian is naked and angry.

Attached: 219776.jpg (729x721, 94K)

Why are sorcerers a separate thing from wizards? Wouldn’t it make more sense for sorcerers to be a subclass of wizard? As far as I can tell the only real thing that’s different between a sorcerer and a wizard is that the sorcerer is born into magic rather than taught into it.

>Why are barbarians a separate thing from fighters?
to justify existence of d12

Hey, no disagreements here, sorcerers really shouldn't be there own separate class either, doesn't make all that much sense.

Attached: 1519620927401.png (2560x3620, 7.2M)

Why did you make a thread almost identical to one currently up () except with a fetish bait OP pic?

Why is a Paladin not a subset of fighter?

Why is Druid not a subset of cleric?

Why is Ranger not a subset of thief.

Why is Thief not a subset of fighter?

Why is cleric not a subset of Wizard?

Why do we have classes beyond "Fighting man" and "Thinking man"

And while we’re on the subject can we agree that Druids are Clerics?

Oh wow, I didn't see that, okay that's my bad. What are the odds, though, right?

Attached: 1521500159763.jpg (736x823, 126K)

Have you tried not playing DnD?

Pretty much. You could replace the Domain of Nature cleric with a Druid and there would barely be a noticeable difference.

Attached: 1521843584066.jpg (800x500, 173K)

Druids are a hell of a lot better in bed.

What if we bumped all martial classes up a die and make Barbarians a subset of Fighter? That way, everyone gets meatier and it'd help make Fighters, y'know, actually good at their job for once.

>Why do we have classes beyond "Fighting man" and "Thinking man"
Don't forget "sneaky man". But other than those 3 classes and their subtypes I'm on board with your line of thinking.

Attached: Tavernwiki.jpg (788x800, 238K)

>Don't forget "sneaky man".
If you're going into a dungeon filled with deadly monsters, everyone should be sneaky man. Rogues are the worst thing to happen to D&D, bad enough they took away the fighting man's skills but then he had to suck ass in every way imaginable unless the DM throws a pity trap their way to disarm.

Because Barbarians have different utility skills, weaponry, and armor preferences. Why wouldn't they be a separate thing?

Attached: BarbarianPrincess.png (477x650, 640K)

Why are warlocks a separate thing from clerics? Wouldn't it make more sense for warlocks to be a subclass of cleric? As far as I can tell he only real thing that's different between a warlock and a cleric is that the warlock gets his magic from an entity that may not be strictly divine.

Attached: 1444245154764.jpg (640x960, 59K)

He just wanted to post that pic and didn't care about the topic.

They shouldn't be a separate class from Clerics, they should just be another subtype, like a domain.

Attached: 1520835660440.jpg (1280x720, 54K)

Why don't I have a brown Amazon to hug me and whisper in my ear

Attached: pout.jpg (474x519, 37K)

>Why is a Paladin not a subset of fighter?
Being imbued with divine power to act as the martial arm of a faith.
>Why is Druid not a subset of cleric?
The difference between the worship and power of nature(and its spirits) versus gods and the separate nature of their spell lists along with various nature derived powers.
>Why is Ranger not a subset of thief.
Nature derived divine power imbued to those who hunt.
>Why is Thief not a subset of fighter?
Sufficiently different skill sets that differentiate between them.
>Why is cleric not a subset of Wizard?
The nature of the spells (prayers) is sufficiently different to be a seperate class, along with very different class powers derived from a separate power source.
>Why do we have classes beyond "Fighting man" and "Thinking man"
Because each of these classes is sufficiently different that either the two classes above would be so generic with such intense customization, that it would effectively still create all these various class archetypes. And as such why not simply make them separate classes and reduce the overly broad design space into smaller discrete chunks to better work with.

Any more stupid questions?

>Why are warlocks a separate thing from clerics?
Different power sources and abilities derived from such power sources. They belong to the arcane grouping and do not have many of the properties of the divine group. The nature of their origin, as arcane caster given knowledge of power by a patron, is not the same thing as being imbued with power by your faith in a divine entity to call upon miracles through prayer supplied by the entity in which you've placed your faith. Though superficially similar through intense simplification, they are too dissimilar by way of their actual fluff and abilities.

Anybody else have any more stupid questions about why these things are different?

Why are barbarians a separate thing from fighters?

Infact, why do we even have classes beyond "man" and just add on the colorful bits as the player desires?

Why don't we make D&D classless and just give people feats every level or something?

(or just play a different fantasy rpg with better character progression... As I was hinting at...)

this is the second time we have had this thread today. Is this the new why no gun? cause this is a weaker premise and will get older quicker.

Would that mean "woman" is another class, or would that also be a subclass of "man"?

Just using it for the sake of congruity with the other person's statement. Infact I was trying to imply that classes were just pointless in the first place.

Wouldn't make a classless system more sense?

Karl Marx, is that you? I didn't know they have internet in hell. But maybe it's dial-up, that would make sense.

>le fighters aren't good at their job meme
Properly managed you can have a fighter that does retardedly powerful attacks many, many times a round at, say, level 10.

Have you heard about Heroquest?
i recommend the glorantha edition because it comes with a good and easy to hack magic system.

Short explanation: You use your sheet simply to write down who your character is, community, profession, culture and then add some abilities, which can be anything to solve problems with, from spellbooks over karate to connections.

Character creation only takes like 10 minutes f you know what you want and half an hour for new players with guiding GM. Despite being a narrative system, character creation and progression is rewarding, there is mechanical depth without useless complexity and creativity from players is rewarded.

Yeah, how did you know?

Apple is currently testing their new internet service here, no wonder when the boss runs both companies.

Attached: 1f1xy6.jpg (991x902, 54K)

It’s basically the difference between being a trained fighter and a rough-and-tumble berserker. Do you focus on temporary bursts of brute power, or practiced skills? The differences in playstyle are enough to warrant classes.

How does that change them? As far as I can tell, their still not wizards without the power granted by their patron, and still have to honor deals with the patron. How is that different than a cleric upholding their deal with a god? If their patron's a demon, it's almost the same power as a god.

Sorcerers as a class doesn't make sense because they are a weird bridge for class as race almost.

I mean, if you have a sorceress powers of undeath from a vampire ancestory and you are a vampire does that make you a vampire/vampire?

The entire idea is stupid.

Race options should be a character creation/progression thing but never have a whole class built around it.

Honestly if anything a warlock is nothing but a character option for the wizard as far as how they got their power if you're going to diminish the importance of the patron beyond giving them their powers. It's not even the fact that warlocks are mechanically inclined to do anything their patron wants really

Is this the new flavor of spam bait? I guess haremposting got old but guns and that how would x do in 40k shit were still going strong, last I checked.

because having multiple classes, each representing a major archetype in fiction, is the best way to handle it if you're going to bother with classes at all

customization of the class can be handled on a somewhat lower level, like subclasses or variant features or what have you

My homebrew system solved this.
fighting man can do fighty stuff
spellcasty man can do spellcasty stuff
roguish man can do skillful and sleight of hand stuff.

Considering making multiclassing the default so there's no need to make mixed classes like spellsword either.

Unless you're in 4th edition, where Druids are legitimately a whole other thing to clerics.

Those are the words of a man who has never had sex when Deus Vult, it is LITERALLY divine.

Really Barbarians should have been treated like a race.

Then play an OSR style game like Basic Fantasy or Dungeon Crawl Classics, the game you want probably exists friendo.

Attached: 1497928549511.png (711x919, 932K)

Can we all just agree that Clerics are just a variant magic-user?

I second HQG as a good system.

>Why is a Paladin not a subset of fighter?
Good question
>Why is Druid not a subset of cleric?
Because they're not very alike in fluff.
>Why is Ranger not a subset of thief.
Because it should be a subset of Fighter
>Why is Thief not a subset of fighter?
Because it doesn't do remotely the same things. The Rogue should be a subset of fighter, as should the assassin.
>Why is cleric not a subset of Wizard?
Because the Cleric is basically a Paladin
>Why do we have classes beyond "Fighting man" and "Thinking man"
Because you also need "social man"

Clerics cast divine magic, magic-users cast arcane magic.

Attached: Douche Wizard.png (611x839, 33K)

Ima split the basic classes into major groups

Brawlers

>Barbarian rely on their instincts

>Fighters rely on their training

>Paladins rely on their goals

>Rogues rely on their tricks
Devotees

>Druids borrow power from the earth

>Clerics borrow power from the gods

>Monks borrow power from themselves

>Bards borrow power from legends
Casters

>Sorcerers channel ancestry

>Wizards channel knowledge

>Warlocks channel what they are given

Because spontaneous spellcasting used to be a thing unique to sorcerers. Now WOTC decided that they couldn't have people thinking things out ahead of time in their anime sim so everybody gets what used to be unique to the sorc.

Four classes only
Warrior
Mage
Priest
Thief
Any more and you're doing it wrong.

>you also need "social man"
No you don't, fighting man and thinking man are the good cop bad cop of the social world.

You have all of your bases covered with them.

They didn't used to be.

Then Wizards of the Coast came along with their bad design and ruined a perfectly good system.

No see, Ranger was a subset of Fighter not Thief. Bard was Thief.

why are you such an obvious 3aboo?

sure. -2 to strength, +2 to charisma, just like gygax intended.

in 2e, sure.

> berserker Charlotte
Patrician taste

Or, y'know, 5e, the current one that more people play.

I would be okay with it as a class (say, named Paragon?) and it be structured like the 3.5 fighter where you just get racial feats every other level instead of combat feats.

So a Drow Matriarch isn't some ludicrous level adjust race, it's a Level 15 Drow Paragon.

Then give fighters spontaneous casting of weeaboo fightan magic.

Suddenly both classes solved.

they were in 2e. albiet named Witch.

nah. vastly different spell list, prep requirements, learning method, and secondary abilities.

Further apart than thief and fighter.

Heck in 2e they weren't even grouped the same, divine spells were sorted by sphere (domain) and arcane by school.

Originally, "Fighting Man" was meant to encapsulate "being Conan" and "Magic-User" was the only other option.
Then Cleric, then Paladin, the Thief got added. And once Thief was in, "being Conan" bled out of the Fighter's purview.

After several kludge attempts by Gygax to stat Conan failed, he added a Barbarian class for "being Conan."

WotC threw three-quarters of it out and patched the hole by making them berserks. God know why.

>Why are barbarians a separate thing from fighters?
Because many people can't imagine their character as barbarian until some authority figure confirms it for them. Hence instead of simply playing as some archetype of savage and cunning warrior they had to slap a class on it. Now that he has a class name 'barbarian' and some abilities vaguely related to the archetype, now he is barbarin for reals.

Attached: 1503844287552.jpg (1124x1504, 362K)

and now we're playing OD&D

Not how it worked. Females can have up to 18/75 strength. If you rolled above that (1-in-864 chance) you don't play an 18/75 strength female, you failed a prereq for being female and have to play a male.

2e Bard. AD&D Bard was a type of Druid.

Druids are just a specific kinda Cleric. Get rid of em.

>Because spontaneous spellcasting used to be a thing unique to sorcerers.

And bards. And paladins. And artificer. And beguiler. And favored soul. and warmage...

for two turns a shortrest.

I still don't understand why Paladins are even thing. When they were added, Clerics were WAY more about Fighting than about Using Magic.

False. Cleric was in the chainmail expansion too alongside the magic user and fighter.

Also thief and paladin were added at the same time, though thief had been around for longer in homebrew, which is where it was inducted from.

that's 2nd edition. Go back earlier, before percentile dice.

Plenty of 3e clerics got spells from demons, not just evil/chaotic gods.

fair point.

It may surprise you to know that not a single paladin core book description has ever mentioned serving a god, or in fact doing anything holy related in their original incarnations until 9th level when they learn divine spells FROM a cleric order they pledge loyalty to if their wisdom is even high enough.

They're just supposed to be inspiring paragons of virtue, possibly on horseback if you're using the cavalier kit one not the fighter kit one.

A knight in shining armor. Not a holy warrior. Clerics are the Templar.

>athiest paladins

Attached: 6ee.png (800x494, 694K)

It's AD&D. 2e throws out gender restrictions.
>before percentile dice.
What?

You're ... sort of right? Clerics were added in one of the later Blackmoor campaigns.
Even Paladins are older than them (which answers ). Lots of material used Dave and Gary's tables didn't mame it into the booklets.
Theives and Paladins were published at the same time but Paladins are 3 or 4 years older.

>It's AD&D. 2e throws out gender restrictions.
>>before percentile dice.
>What?
am i thinking of Basic or something then?

i definitely remember this being a thing.

Why are Rangers a separate thing from Rogues? Wouldn’t it make more sense for Rangers to be a subclass of Rogues? As far as I can tell the only real thing that’s different between a Ranger and a Rogue is that the Ranger is more nature-themed while the Rogue is more urban themed.

Attached: 1455786947148.png (717x561, 443K)

Oh. Do you mean exceptional strength? That goes all the way back to OD&D from Supplement I: Greyhawk.
Much older than gender restrictions.

Bill is kind of a special case, literally being the last of his race and being bio-modded and cybered up to be the champion that was meant to try to preserve them from destruction.
The whole accidentally getting involved in working with literal gods also probably threw him for a loop when he accidentally replaced one of them because his righteousness let him lift mjolnir without even a slight issue.

>Karl Marx
>hell
The road to hell is not paved with good intentions.
The road to heaven is not paved with good actions.
Fuck Dante.
Lenin in hell? Sure. Stalin? Definitely. But not Marx.

Marx meant well and the philosophical pit he fell into was dug for him by Socrates.

I've never got this notion.
Rangers don't do anything rogue-y except be good hiders

In older editions they were almost kind of the wilderness equivalent to the paladins civilization. that old law vs chaos tussle. When good-evil was added both had to be good, boths description mention bringing law and justice against the wicked. One just fights monsters from within and the other monsters from without.
It's a sneaky guy with a bow, dual swords, and nature magic that hunts monsters and evil demihumans.
How is it in any way a backstabbing, code-talking skillmonkey infiltrator?

>Marx meant well

I always find it amazing how delusional commies are about Marx.

Attached: karl-marx.png (534x307, 102K)

Because you described both classes half with intent not Their skillsets.

It's like saying an evil wizard must be a warlock

>when he accidentally replaced one of them because his righteousness let him lift mjolnir without even a slight issue.

I must agree with him then. Why serve a god who is no more righteous than a man such as myself? His only qualification then is power. Should I cower in fear? I will bow to no tyrant.

>Dude I literally live off of the wealth of my rich friends as a layabout

>everyone should live like me and those who want wealth are evil

Try being a warlock or necromancer without being an evil wizard.

I wish I could live off the wealth of my parents

This.

Bill considers the asgardians the most noble of divine people's

But odin is his oath-lord not his spiritual godhead

Yeah but I can be an evil wizard without being a necromancer or warlock

It's basically the communist system at its purist. Being a big old social sponge for the benefit of nobody

Their skillsets are

>Hiding, backstabbing, code/language talking and reading, trap/lock disabling, climbing smooth surfaces, using scrolls

>Hiding, nature magic, tracking, favored enemy, animal empathy, dual wielding with no disadvantages, attracting weird followers, must follow a code of conduct

Literally the only overlap is hiding and that bladed instruments get involved somehow.

And this is relevant how? You're getting your prerequisites mixed up.

I thought the Kender was communism at its purist?

Huh. So Rangers are like Witchers?
And Paladins are... eh, not quite cops, but maybe closer to cape heroes and knights in myth instead of what they actually were, paid thugs?

Neat. I like it when i can see the role classes play in society.

You're getting warmer.

Attached: 1521563968898.jpg (1315x1820, 2.83M)

Thief sounds like an urban ranger desu man

The following classes should just be folded into other classes: Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer

But Plato already did that.

I completely agree