Quote:
Originally Posted by TanaNari
That's still function, defining them solely by their combat proficiencies. As long as you keep focusing on that, you'll never find a way to answer the question.
What is their archetype? Not a stat block, not a mechanical role, but their purpose in a story. AKA- who are they?
Come on, dude, even Belkar could figure out the difference. Eventually.
|
Come on, are you really trying to insult my intelligence* or what? I know the difference. Doesn't mean I'm willing to do what you're asking me. Did you read my previous post?
In my previous post I just told you that
the class is defined by its function in order to accommodate* multiple archetypes. I also gave you two very different archetypes (Zulu warrior and Bogatyr). Add a hoplite, a high-medieval man-at-arms, a pitfighter and a Mongol archer to the list, if you want, for more clarity. You still want them to be "the same archetype". But that's only possible if the archetype is extremely broad, to the point that, yes, it's defined by its function.
For the same reason that superhero games tend to have a Blast Power (fire/ice/electricity/whatever), and not Fire Blast, Ice Blast, Electric Blast and so on
ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Basically, by asking me to take a class that's defined by its function, you're asking me to narrow it down to something it's not. Borrowing a term from an older edition of D&D, you're asking me to take the base class, pick
a kit class, and define all members of the class as said kit.
Which means leaving all the other archetypes out. And also means we'd need basically endless kits.
Nope, not going to go that route. Or if you want another attempt, here it is.
The Fighter Is The Supreme Master Of All Martial Skills (though usually not all of them at once, Fighters tend to be at least competent in all of them - though it's not excluded, either - much like how MMA competitors can be rather specialised in one or two areas of their game, but all of the decent ones at least have an idea how to approach the other areas, and usually wouldn't mind using them when opportunity presents itself).
That's it. There can be no "reason you're doing that", because the reasons might well differ. There's no "approach", when some Fighters (at least in pop-culture) would challenge you to a fight by some kind of rules, like the above pitfighter, while others consider a surprise attack fair game, and train to deal with those, like everybody else on the expanded list.
*Yeah, the comparison with Belkar isn't flattering. I'll let that slide this time
.
**Albeit the actual mechanics often don't help that
.