Classes: Professions vs. Archetypes

[Remathilis]

I was considering some of various class debates (X is/isn't a class) and I think I have an idea as to why their is such division on what is/isn't a class.

Classes really come in two forms: Professions and Archetypes. Allow me to explain. A profession is what someone does. Its his job. He trains to be it. He probably would refer to himself as such ("I am a ranger"). An archetype describes what someone is, but not how they would necessarily see himself as. A barbarian, for example, would not think of himself as a barbarian. However, society would describe him as such and react accordingly. He wouldn't call himself a barbarian except to acknowledge what society thinks of him. Most classes fall into one or the other, but its a blurry line since many professions end up archetypes in themselves.

Some examples of profession classes: bard, druid, ranger, paladin, samurai, thief, and wizard
Some examples of archetype classes: fighter, rogue, swashbuckler, barbarian, magic-user, and sorcerer.

The problem aligns when people think all classes should be one or the other. People who think classes represent archetypes dislike the confinement of specific professions. They want champions and not paladins, nature priests and not druids. Those who think classes are professions want specialized classes rather than generic classes. Additionally, archetypers want a few, broad classes while professioners want many specialized classes.

Which begins to beg the question; should D&D classes lean toward supporting archetypes (and let the PC fill in the gaps) or more towards professions (which have a stronger link to fluff and crunch) or neither?

 

[Frostmarrow]

Very interesting find. One thing I really love about D&D is that it never tried to make perfect sense. Somehow, by being fuzzy and selfcontradictory, D&D has managed to stay interesting for 40 years.
So in answer to your question: I'd like to see both professions and archetypes as classes in the future. I like having some confusion. But I also like to see clearly, and your find helps me do that.

 

[Andor]

It's a correct perception but I agree with Frostmarrow: D&D should embrace both. The ideas are in tension but tension provides strength and resiliency.

Besides, which class is an archetype and which is a profession will vary from world to world and from campaign to campaign depending on the preferences of the GM and players.

In many worlds I think Wizard would be very much a profession, although in common-magic worlds perhaps not. Although a Wizard might title themselves by their speciality "Belinda the Conjurer" or "Tim the Enchanter" it's still clearly their profession.

Although it would be pretty amusing to see a bunch of adventurers walk up to a green-grocer and ask about where to find the local wizard and hear "Oh we don't really have a proper wizard, but I dabble a little. I guess I could gate you to Baator. Just give me a minute to close up the shop."

 

[pemerton]

I think there is another relevant factor that needs to be considered - namely, mechanical details.

As far as archetype is concerned, there is not much to choose between the classic D&D cleric (heavily armed and armoured holy warrior) and the classic D&D paladin (heavily armed and armoured holy warrior). They are only different in play because the game makes such a big mechanical deal of the difference between a sword (paladin) and a mace (cleric), of the difference between spell-powered miracles (cleric) and innate ability miracles (paladin), and of the differences between their base attack numbers (better for cleric) and their base turn undead numbers (better for paladin).

Similarly for ranger vs fighter. If tracking, exploring, endurance, etc were just part of background, or part of the WIS and CON stats, then a ranger would just be a fighter with appropriate background and stats. It's only because these are called out via particular mechanical subsystems that we have conceptual space for the ranger as a distinct class.

Of course, once the classes are in play, at least some elements of the fanbase then try to construct archetypical differences, and so we see attempts to explain how a ranger is different from a fighter in story terms, or a cleric different from a paladin in story terms. I think this is part of what people mean when they say D&D has become its own self-referential genre.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Both, but mostly archetype. Specific class variations, via the player's choices, should develop the archetype into the specific profession for an individual character.

 

[Ratskinner]

Which begins to beg the question; should D&D classes lean toward supporting archetypes (and let the PC fill in the gaps) or more towards professions (which have a stronger link to fluff and crunch) or neither?

I think I mostly agree with your analysis, but I don't think that there's a single good answer to this question. I think it would help a lot for the designer's to pick a "mode" of thought in this area (or would have helped). The way I see it, having an "archetype" style would work well with a small number of broad classes (maybe 3 or 4) along with sensible multiclassing that allowed both "splashing" or getting a dusting of another class. Toss in some awesome background rules for spice and flavor and you're done. On the other hand, if class is supposed to represent a specific profession within the world...then I think you need a whole awful lot of them that are specifically tuned to the game world, and the whys and wherefores of multiclassing get a lot more complicated (IMO). (And you probably want to have clear rules for DMs to generate their own classes.)

I think since they didn't take a strong stance on this in the beginning of the design process (instead focusing getting the "feel" or "core experience" of D&D correct as a determinant of class existence), we are left with the haphazard pile of things that we have now. Mechanically, I don't think it matters all that much, but there's a sort of ongoing mental or psychological toll (not to mention the verbal confusions) to a game where you could have:

• an uncivilized warrior who is a Ranger
• a man who escaped the gladiatorial arenas who is a Barbarian
• a professional aristocratic soldier who is a Fighter(Gladiator)
• a member of a mounted law-enforcement organization called the Rangers who is a Fighter(Knight)

...all at the same table.

 

[Celebrim]

Which begins to beg the question; should D&D classes lean toward supporting archetypes (and let the PC fill in the gaps) or more towards professions (which have a stronger link to fluff and crunch) or neither?

I think 1st and 2nd edition leaned strongly toward the paradigm that class and profession where the same thing. First edition characters presumably knew what their class was and would describe themselves in world as a member of their class. Dragon magazine in the 1e era was filled with various classes for very specific professions: entertainer, jester, mariner, bandit, alchemist, merchant, sentinel, duelist, etc. If the profession happened also to be archetypal, well so much the better, but it wasn't essential. Part of this is that the template provided by the thief class for expanding skills strongly leaned toward a fixed list of skills which were gained in a fixed way. So, for example, examine the design of the Mariner class for 1e with its list of sailing related skills. This assumption that all skills and abilities were tied to class lead in one instance to a book of mundane profession classes to explain skills not part of a heroic class: cook, blacksmith, carpenter, etc.

Based on what I've been doing with my house rules though, I lean much harder to class is an archetype supporting many professions. I think this is an evolution of a trend that began with 2nd edition kit classes, where many different professions were treated as minor variations of the same archetypal class and which was continued in the design of 3rd edition. Once you begin to establish a skills system and a feat system so that not every ability has to be a class ability, then you are able to move toward a class as archetype mode. Of course, 3e simultaneously worked against this structure by introducing the prestige classes which often were very specific to a profession or specialty, but its worth noting that the prestige classes ultimately provoked my house rules. I disliked them so much I immediately banned them, but then found I needed to invent new rules to cover the cases where abandoning the prestige class left a hole in what you could make as a player.

I as I conceive things now, your class might be hunter, but your profession could be hunter, huntsman, fur trapper, woodsman, ranger, warden, scout, gamekeeper, reeve, exotic animal handler, elephant tamer, bounty hunter, or assassin. In a fantasy setting, you also might work as an itinerant professional slayer of various monsters - undead slayer, dragon slayer, demon slayer, or slayer of werewolves, or you might belong to an elite commando style military unit making your profession 'soldier'.

Or your class might be explorer, but your profession could be sailor, pirate, navigator, guide, caravan guard, translator, surveyor, merchant, archaeologist, teamster, or vagabond.

Conversely though, not every member of the listed professions might belong to the class I've just associated it with.

I can see going back to a 1st edition paradigm, but I'd consider it retro, nostalgic, and rather retrograde. I don't really see why you'd want 400 classes. In practice, it never quite worked for most players, who when forced into such inflexible frames often rebelled against the very notion of class based characters and started looking yearningly at skill based character generation and advancement.

 

[Orius]

I think 1st and 2nd edition leaned strongly toward the paradigm that class and profession where the same thing. First edition characters presumably knew what their class was and would describe themselves in world as a member of their class. Dragon magazine in the 1e era was filled with various classes for very specific professions: entertainer, jester, mariner, bandit, alchemist, merchant, sentinel, duelist, etc.

Based on what I've been doing with my house rules though, I lean much harder to class is an archetype supporting many professions. I think this is an evolution of a trend that began with 2nd edition kit classes, where many different professions were treated as minor variations of the same archetypal class and which was continued in the design of 3rd edition. Once you begin to establish a skills system and a feat system so that not every ability has to be a class ability, then you are able to move toward a class as archetype mode. Of course, 3e simultaneously worked against this structure by introducing the prestige classes which often were very specific to a profession or specialty, but its worth noting that the prestige classes ultimately provoked my house rules.

I can see going back to a 1st edition paradigm, but I'd consider it retro, nostalgic, and rather retrograde. I don't really see why you'd want 400 classes. In practice, it never quite worked for most players, who when forced into such inflexible frames often rebelled against the very notion of class based characters and started looking yearningly at skill based character generation and advancement.

I agree. 1e had a pretty strong "class=profession" approach to it with dozens of variant classes. 2e instead rather quickly dropped it, and used classes as broad archetypes that were customized with proficiencies and kits. I started in the 2e era, so I prefer the 2e/3e approach. It's more flexible for the players and DM if the classes remain broad and can be customized with skills and feats rather than trotting out a class with tiny differences everytime something new is needed.

 

[howandwhy99]

To do is to be. To be is to do. Do be do be do.

In D&D the Class is the role you are playing. It's not about character play or personality play or personas. You can ignore that stuff if you prefer. Call yourself by your own name. You can't say "it was my character who hit you" as it was you the player who chose to hit him. Well you used your imaginary puppet to hit his, but it's still coming from you. The characters are like suits, it is the class role as defined by the game you are playing at.

Classes, or core classes now, are broad professional fields. You could be a medical professional. Then the purview of the game for you is engaging with and improving your, the player's, ability within that role. Subclasses are specific professions either specific to the starting campaign setting or custom created by a player. These fall under one of the core classes, more or less. A non-core class could be created, but that is taxing any DM to an extraordinary degree.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I agree. 1e had a pretty strong "class=profession" approach to it with dozens of variant classes. 2e instead rather quickly dropped it, and used classes as broad archetypes that were customized with proficiencies and kits. I started in the 2e era, so I prefer the 2e/3e approach. It's more flexible for the players and DM if the classes remain broad and can be customized with skills and feats rather than trotting out a class with tiny differences everytime something new is needed.

I never really got that impression from 2e. I felt it still leaned heavily on the class=profession trope. I started in early 2e as well but I always pretty much assumed everyone knew their class and would consider it a fairly accurate description of themselves.

Sure, proficiencies and kits let people play around within the classes space a bit, but I never felt like it was changing your whole outlook on life. If you were a thief who took the swashbuckler kit, I imagined that the character still spent his days stealing from people but had simply learned to fight as well. This was in contrast to a fighter who took the swashbuckler kit for fighters who didn't steal things but learned a dramatic form of fighting. He likely hired himself out as a sell sword or was a soldier since he was a fighter.

I think things changed a lot more dramatically with 3e when classes became more of a tool kit than an archetype or a profession. Though, I don't believe that was ever actually intended by the authors. I think someone just said "Why not allow you to pick a different class each time you go up a level. That'll give players more choice." while fully expecting everyone to mostly take 2 classes or 3 classes and to mostly concentrate on one class. But once the wide world of players got a hold of the rules, it became what it became.

As for the original question, I think classes are meant to be both archetypes AND professions for the most part.

Even some of the ones the OP lists as non-profession classes (fighter, rogue, swashbuckler, barbarian, magic-user, and sorcerer) can be considered professions as well. A fighter=sellsword/mercinary/guard/bouncer/any profession that pretty much equals "fighter". A Barbarian likely doesn't have a profession. The point of a barbarian is that they grew up in a primitive society likely without professions. What do they do on an average day? Be a Barbarian. Rogues steal things from people or act underhanded in order to get money, etc.

I think I've always seen classes as the overwhelming part of your personality. It's who you are. It is likely your self identity. Sometimes people define themselves by their profession. Sometimes they define themselves by some other trait. I consider myself to be a Gamer even though as a profession I'm an IT professional. But ask someone else who they are and they might say Lawyer, Athlete, Football Player, Jock, Fireman, Hero, or any number of other descriptors. Someone might be a Secretary as a profession but put their enthusiasm, passion, and time into writing a book and define themselves as a Writer. To me, that's what class is.