Have you read or played a game where you feel certain classes/archetypes don't fit the premise, or simply don't work for some reason? For me it's..

The Driver in Apocalypse World. A character that's all about mobility on a game centered around community. Enough said.

The Decker in Shadowrun. I dare someone run the matrix RAW in an agile way as to not alienate the other players. It's one of the most convoluted piece of rules I've seen. When we played it we all agreed to handwave all that crap. That was the only way for us to have deckers in the group.

Monks, anyone?

Decker (for Shadowrun or CP) is an interesting case, since they certainly fit the premise. They just don't work unless everyone plays one (or you alternate game nights or something).

Here's one.
Certain games have what I will call "minor-characters." The 1e WoD had vampire's ghouls, werewolf's relatives, ghosts mediums, mage apprentices I think. WEG Star Wars had rules for droids. And these characters had their own advancement, but in the end the best they could do with tons of xp was worse that what the main character classes had at the start. They clearly weren't meant to be played on the same level as the main classes/types. Yet the books existed, and was there really going to be a lot of 'just droids' SW campaigns or 'just ghouls' vampire campaigns? So it seems like they only existed for that one person who wanted oh-so-much to play that role and wanted rules to allow it (and didn't care that they would effectively suck for the entire campaign).

Another:
Cyberpunk 2020 (again) had two classes that you would ever be: deckers (if you wanted that type of campaign, and there wasn't a whole rest of the party to throw up their hands when the netrunning started), and Solos. The combat advantages that Solos got were so insurmountable, and combat was enough of any non-net game, that you would never not play one unless the entire campaign concept was built around one of the other (such as playing a rockerboy in a campaign built around a touring band).

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;998182Monks, anyone?

Yup, Monks. They don't fit.  I never allow them, or at least I haven't in a very long time.

More often what I see are classes that feel redundant. Or like they should have been a sub-class.

The Barbarian in 5e is one example. The Sorcerer as well feels like it could have been a class path for the Wizard.

What's the problem with Monks? D&D, from 2e forward is clearly a combat-focused game, so an eastern warrior seems to fit. Or is it a matter of balance/numbers?

Quote from: Willie the DuckDecker (for Shadowrun or CP) is an interesting case, since they certainly fit the premise. They just don't work unless everyone plays one (or you alternate game nights or something).

Here's one.
Certain games have what I will call "minor-characters." The 1e WoD had vampire's ghouls, werewolf's relatives, ghosts mediums, mage apprentices I think. WEG Star Wars had rules for droids. And these characters had their own advancement, but in the end the best they could do with tons of xp was worse that what the main character classes had at the start. They clearly weren't meant to be played on the same level as the main classes/types. Yet the books existed, and was there really going to be a lot of 'just droids' SW campaigns or 'just ghouls' vampire campaigns? So it seems like they only existed for that one person who wanted oh-so-much to play that role and wanted rules to allow it (and didn't care that they would effectively such for the entire campaign).

Another:
Cyberpunk 2020 (again) had two classes that you would ever be: deckers (if you wanted that type of campaign, and there wasn't a whole rest of the party to throw up their hands when the netrunning started), and Solos. The combat advantages that Solos got were so insurmountable, and combat was enough of any non-net game, that you would never not play one unless the entire campaign concept was built around one of the other (such as playing a rockerboy in a campaign built around a touring band).

Yeah, never liked the option of "minor" charactes either. I remember Shadowrun first edition having a Rocker archetype. The concept by itself was flavourful, but it never fit the premise of doing shadowruns so they dropped it. Wisely so, I would say.

Quote from: Itachi;998189What's the problem with Monks? D&D, from 2e forward is clearly a combat-focused game, so an eastern warrior seems to fit. Or is it a matter of balance/numbers.

Because the default D&D setting is largely based upon a Western European world, in which case Kung Fu Monks don't seem to fit. However, the counterpoint is that in a fantasy setting anything goes, so you can stick in whatever. It depends on what you consider to be authentic or not.

D&D was never meant to be a historical simulation of medieval Western Europe, but a bunch of stuff from popular culture at the time. Which included Kung Fu. It was everywhere in the 1970s. Everyone was Kung Fu fighting was not just a song. And in the 1980s it eventually evolved into the ninja craze.

Makes about as much sense as Druids (pre Roman) or Rangers (completely fictional) or Assassins (based on the Islamic sect). More so, because a lot of the wuxia movies from the Shaw brothers were basically D&D movies.  Usually a small group of guys fighting against bandits or crooked government officials or somesuch with swords and glaives and other stuff

How many movies about Druids were there? The Wicker Man? And the first real assassin shows up in popular culture in Robin of Sherwood (though maybe he's a ranger) in the early 1980s. Yet there were 100s of Shaw brothers martial arts movies and they were constantly on TV

Quote from: JeremyR;998192D&D was never meant to be a historical simulation of medieval Western Europe

Yes it was:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1716[/ATTACH]

If being a simulation of medieval combat was their goal, then yeah, they failed miserably.

I'm a software developer with a lot of object-oriented experience.  I'll never quite come fully to terms with D&D classes, even though I can put the problem away and enjoy playing.  (It's this minor irritant that never goes away, but isn't enough to keep me out of the game.)

Specifically, I don't care for how "class" has an elastic meaning depending upon which classes we see.  For example, paladins and clerics are too much alike.  Then barbarians and rangers are specific while the fighter is generic.  If a ranger has spells, why do we have that instead of a rogue/druid or fighter/druid mix?  Or if we must have hybrid classes, why also multi-classing?  Yeah, I know, "archetypes".  Except that rationale is all over the place, too, with frequent gaps unaccounted for.  It's a mess.  It's a glorious mess, which is why I can enjoy it.

Monk definitely.  Although that was only during the past 10 years or so when I was told they meant kung-fu monks.

For years and years I thought they meant this kind of monk


Which made me wonder how they got all those kewl powerz.

Original D&D was meant first and foremost to be a GAME!

So, yeah, if you want Franciscans running around doing flying kung-fu kicks, go for it!

Crom, now I have an idea for different techniques available for Franciscans, Cistercians, Benedictines...

Quote from: TrippyHippy;998197Yes it was:

The title is in a font suitable for an old west saloon or wanted poster. The guy on the cover has a plate armor torso over a chainmail t-shirt, bare legs, one glove, boots like a comic book superhero, and a horned helmet from a Wagner opera. No country in Europe featured warriors equipped like that at any point between 500 and 1500AD. I don't think anything appeared like that in Europe until GWAR toured there in 1991.