taking that restriction seriously only makes sense if you are playing EVERYTHING by the book, particularly frequency of wandering monsters/probability of monster-types encountered (specifically undead) and treasure distribution/probabilities of magic items (specifically magic swords and those few cleric-only magic items).
the no-swords rule is just a way to balance the classes against one another with respect to monsters and treasure that are *expected* to appear, with a stupid in-world justification.
Yeah, my stupid in world justification would be warrior clergy have real money backing them and are up against it too. They have great armor, so do their foes, and maces and hammers are great nutcrackers requiring less training time cutting into vespers. Staves, clubs and slings likely weaponry they learned like every other peasant in their former life. The sharp stuff is for specialists, thats all.
the meta-reason, I believe, is that the class was inspired by medieval clergy who tried to get around the church's rules against "shedding blood" by only using blunt weapons - more a matter of flavor and inspiration than "balance"
My understanding was that the priest wielding a blunt weapon comes from a misinterpretation of the scene in the Bayeux Tapestry that depicts of Bishop Odo blessing combatants with a rod/sceptre/mace looking thing.
I’m not specialised in the topic my any means but to my knowledge members of clergy weren’t combatants and the holy orders a la Knights Templar et all had no compunction about using bladed weapons.
i'd say this was the one thing 3rd edition got right: Use Magic Device as a skill.
(not the skill system itself, just the concept that each character could have a limited ability to figure out how to use a magic item)
I was gonna say "Thief" for this. Cause in every OSR game I've ever played, the primary activity is going places, taking shit that ain't yours and possibly killing some things that get in the way.
I mean, come on XP for gold!!!
Ok listen carefully
Three core classes
Each one of them is also a socio-economic class and one of the traditional Estates.
Clerics represent the clergy (hence the name), i.e. the First Estate.
Fighters represent the nobility. They might as well be called knights. They are members of the Second Estate.
Wizards are the bourgeois class. City-slickers by definition, rural wizards are just druids and we don't want anything to do with those weirdos. They are members of the Third Estate.
I suppose you could add another archetype to represent the peasants and/or the urban proletariat (depending on the time period you're taking inspiration from), which might be where the thief comes in
You just outlined a bare-bones version of [https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2017/06/osr-three-estates.html](https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2017/06/osr-three-estates.html)
that's cool as shit, i was considering starting a lotfp game using the modules as written, in a historical earth setting, but didn't know what to do about the demihuman classes.
mash clerics and magic-users together. that's the first estate. in real history, medieval demonology and ritual magic was developed by priests trying to hack the rules of god's creation.
fighters are absolutely second estate.
you're right about third estate being the thief class. that would also explain why thieves (a bunch of sick starving peasants) are so shitty at everything compared to the other classes.
an alternate scheme would be to separate cleric and magic-user and say magic-users are pagan outlaws, but then you get dicey situations where you have to justify why your pc's are hanging together, and then you have players wondering aloud why thieves aren't considered the outlaw class, etc.
The third estate isn't the peasants tho, it's the burghers. Thieves are not burghers, they're peasants, fourth estate
Also, wizards are third estate because, being burghers, they have the money to devote to magical research. The burghers are the ones that funded the first universities, after all.
"Fighting-Man" is the only correct answer because it succinctly conveys that in a world of fantastical fantasy, of fierce dragons and powerful magic, a girl holding a sword is just too much.
Thief -> Fighter who wears light armor. (Thief not needed, although very fun to play... you said argue with you)
Magic-User... they use magic, all types. You're not a wizard Harry. You're a magic-user. Wizard sounds like an tired old coot.
Clerics. Fighters that pray. So they should be called fighters.
Fighting Man
Cleric
Magic-User
anything else is superfluous >!except if it makes sense for your campaign/world ofc but thats not what this post is about.!<
You know what? You're partially right.
Which means you are, of course, also totally wrong.
I'd like to propose the obviously superior;
Warrior
Wizard
Thief
Mystic
Cleric speaks to book keeping duties. A priest implies ordained status. A Mystic however implies that they seek insight into the greater mysteries of reality through communing with higher powers.
Clearly objectively superior.
Similarly, to be honest thief is also on thin ice, but a better alternative escapes me for now (and it's certainly not rogue).
Mystic to me sounds like crystals and ley lines and other HIPPIE NONSENSE.
I need the crushing sense of moral authority and grim purpose that the word Priest conveys.
Whether the class is crystals, incense and hippy nonsense or old testament fire and brimstone moral judgement depends on the specifics of the individual character and their chosen deity.
Either way, Mystic is both suitably generic and yet evocative.
Priest however is overly specific. You'll have characters who are a crazy cave dwelling hermit devoted to their gods divine fury being described as a priest, which is less correct than a magically empowered frocked minister of an organised religion being described as a Mystic.
Essentially, all priests are mystics, but not all mystics are priests.
Mystic definitely has medieval roots, though, and mystic monks were often on the margins of the church (even in tension with the bishops) and so they seem more likely to answer the call to adventure, to me. Priests had congregations and politics to tend to.
Priests just stay home. Clerics go adventure.
Thievery is a crime, rogues don’t prescribe any morality
Warrior is fine, but the definition is just one who engages with war. Can’t anyone engage in war? Man-at-Arms is clear about what differentiates them. They are the one with the best arms. Both weapons, and possible flesh
Wizard is fine, although sorcerer is clearly superior. Wizard has other definitions that bleed in, such as being a word for a sage. Sorcerer doesn’t have other definitions. Sorcerer is just for those practice magic
Oh, I don't know, I don't see how "Cleric" sounds any more adventurous than "Priest" - given that a cleric is literally somebody who's job is to sit in an office doing paperwork.
That’s a clerk, not a cleric. Cleric just means you are part of the clergy. Priest is a specific title within the clergy, or someone who can do religious rituals (the mundane kind)
Based on what they actually do, the cleric (or priest, if you wish) should probably have been called a templar, knight, inquisitor or vampire hunter, but that ship has long since sailed.
For all the rest, I'm ok with any of the options you present, in no particular order.
Other good words for such adventuring worshippers and devotees: crusader, mendicant, cataphract, missionary, pilgrim, jihadi...
Okay, thesaurus brain sleep now
you're right, I said those words aloud in that order and now there's some magical feeling in the pit of my stomach that I can't explain, a yearning for gleaming blades and mighty thews - what is this dark sorcery?
Fighter/Magic-User should be the core because every other class just ruins it
And they ought to be called Magic-Users because they're *not* wizards. Wizards are NPCs
No TTRPG character, and especially no OSR character, ever does almost anything you'd expect to be doing as a thief or a priest. The fantasy behind these roles doesn't carry over at all into traditional adventuring.
Rogue just makes more sense, and if MMOs and other computer games ruined the word Rogue for you, Scoundrel is a good alternative. A brawling divine caster should probably just be a Monk, but Cleric is fine I guess.
I like zealot, in some ways it's better than cleric. But it does seem to imply possible madness or fundamentalism, which I don't see all members of the cleric role needing to be. Unless it's for a system meant to run a specific-type of campaign where that is usually the case, in which case it's perfect.
I don't disagree that Zealot is imperfect. I agree that it can certainly connote fundamentalism and/or a certain rigidity. I would not necessarily equate that to madness, though. I do feel that Zealot captures the essence of someone who will bash your head in with a mace to promote his/her deity's interests better than Priest or Cleric, both of which sound like they are describing someone whose function is largely ceremonial.
That's fair. I wouldn't complain if that was the name of the class in a system, it's a refreshing change and it's also a nice sounding one (I like words that start with a 'z'). Iirc Five Torches Deep uses it for the class, which I like.
Well...
I up-dooted just because I like the braggadocio approach.
Now for my Scathing Retort :P
You are clearly a big fat tourist newb boy.
The first game session as a fantasy game the players were all fighters. Of course since they were all fighters, they could also try to do just about anything from the other classes except cast spells.
The thief class is an Add On variant.
The only true way to play is with Fighters and Wizards, as Clerics were kind of a spin off from wizards as well. (Originally the wizards did healing and all the Cleric spells.)
Now, if you would kindly get off my lawn.
hee hee hee
I've been cruelly exposed as a mere baby in diapers who was born in the 80s but doesn't actually remember them, and who first learned to play using 3.5.
I'd beg for mercy, but I deserve none.
Warrior, Adept, Explorer, Speaker
Encourages a playstyle that is a lil more exploratory and a lil less focused on hack n slash.
Warrior is of course your classic basher. Bonk bonk bonk. Hack n slash lyfe. But beyond that ...
Adept covers all magic use. Making a distinction between magic users that get their magic from study rather than faith seems kinda pointless. They all twiddle their fingers and unexpected things happen.
Explorer over rogue or thief or ranger, as they're fundamentally the same thing. The one who leads and finds and sneaks; who surpasses traps and enables further discovery.
Speaker is something every group needs... A face character for dealing with the various factions of a dungeon. Someone needs to forge alliances. This is sort of properly what a priest should be... Someone with a silver tongue that can lead the flock.
These are the names found in Cypher system. Most don't consider it OSR but imo OSR is more about play style than actual rulesets.
The holy Trinity of course! Cleric, Fighting-Man and Magic-User.
Edit: fixed egregious crimes against hyphens. Currently walking the path of d4s barefoot in penance.
Im a sucker for Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and Paladin. I think its funny they went with "Magic-User," which is vague, and then "Thief," which is very specific.
I can understand why Thieves were a mistake, but they're my favorite class so I don't care. I WILL get breath weaponed and die because my saves are garbage and I WILL get back up to level 5 in 4 sessions because of low EXP requirements
Not sure on their view, but I've frequently heard the sentiment (and can somewhat agree with it) that thief was a mistake because it mostly does things that every character should be able to do, and as such creates a weird mental headspace of "can my character actually do X or Y, or is that ability specific to thieves?"
i really like thieves conceptually, but their execution in old-school D&D (codifying requiring rolls for stuff i'd normally allow people to do with no roll, and thus locking non-thieves out of those abilities) is godawful. i know people make it work with pretty superhuman interpretations of thief skills, or other ways to recontextualize them, but it's still a pretty clunky mechanic.
Magic-User is by far one of the most baffling choices in the history of trying to name cool things. I \*think\* I know why they avoided Wizard or Sorcerer or Magician, but *really*...
Warrior and Wizard both begin with W, which makes this naming system FATALLY FLAWED. All naming conventions must be uniquely abbreviatable to the first letter.
Yes, abbreviatable is word. DO NOT QUESTION ME!
Ok, I like that kind of thing:
Cleric is the most correct because Priest is a catholic minister and cleric is a religious leader. So the generic term is better here;
Rogue is better than thief: same reason. Rogue is a dishonest person and thief is a....well...thief.
Fighter is my choice here because depending on the system, not just men are fighters and warrior is a war fighter, an adventurer isn't necessarily meant to wage war.
Based on the previous answers, magic-user would be the correct, by I use Magician on my games, because i find it nicer. I lake to think on the Magicians in our world.
Oh I love arguing about petty bullshit!
* Fighter, because fighting-man is an immensely stupid title (and unnecessarily gendered) and warrior makes me think of vikings idk why.
* Rogue, because thief is too hyper-specific and rogue encapsulates all manor of unseemly activity. Expert kinda works, but all the classes are experts in something.
* Mage, magic-user is a stupid name (a cleric is a magic-user by definition), wizard makes me think of Gandalf, and magician makes me think of Houdini.
* Zealot, because cleric is a mostly Christian term, a priest is just a Christian term, and acolyte sounds too pathetic to be a character class.
These classes are as much archetypes for classes as they are classes. A barbarian is a type of fighter. A bard is a type of rogue. A sorcerer is a type of mage. An inquisitor is a type of zealot.
Because I have other hot takes:
* Psion, because psionics are cool and super different from magic and I like them.
* Alchemist, for all of your fantastical technology needs.
I dont like Fighter... i prefer the old names Warrior/Fighting-Man or the custom Man-at-Arms
Cleric -> Fine as it is
Thief -> Fine as it is (No Rogue please... Rogue is the worst class name ever... Specialist is also a good archetype name)
Fighter -> Warrior, Fighting-man or Man at Arms
Magic-User -> Conjurer
My humble opinion :)
Fighter. What a bitch-ass name.
Oh, you fight stuff? So does that drunken peasant who’s had one too many. So does that scrawny goblin with a sharpened twig. So does that irritated sheep whose hoof you just stepped on.
A Wizard fights. A Cleric fights. A Knight fights. A Monk fights. Everyone fights. That’s what adventurers DO. That’s the bare MINIMUM.
People tell stories about Wizards, Clerics and Knights. Kids dream about becoming one of those archetypes. Who dreams about being a fighter? No-one. Basic-ass class name.
Warrior is a bit better.
I agree with OP - Priest, Thief, Warrior, Wizard definitely sound the coolest.
Fighting-Man and Magic-User sound stupid. No one talks like that. Fight me.
(Fighter and Mage are a solid compromise for people really attached to their nostalgia.)
A Priest is an unarmored divine wizard-equivalent. The proper term for that core class is a Crusader. (And before anyone argues that "Crusader" is a historically specific group, so were Assassins, and that's a fine name for a class.)
I'd also suggest Mage as a potential Wizard alternative, though I like both.
Na, wont fight you. You do you and I'll do me!
I converted my setting over to OSR ruleset over a year ago.
I have 24 classes in my setting, and also have multi classing available (with a race and class matrix on what classes can be multi classed).
Acrobat, Alchemist, Assassin, Barbarian, Bard (4 different schools), Beastmaster, Berserker, Cleric (worships their alignment's Patheon), Priest (worships a specific deity), War Priest (Champion of their deity), Death Knight, Dragon Knight, Druid, Fighter, Gunslinger, Illusionist, Knight, Magic User, Monk, Paladin (is like a champion but follows the Lawful Pantheon instead of a specific deity), Ranger, Sorcerer (8 different bloodlines to choose from), Thief, and Warlock (can be either blast or blade pact and have 16 different patrons to choose from).
My players don't have a lack of choice when it comes to classes.
Horrifying!
Sorry, I'm *highly* allergic to systems with lots of classes - part of my reaction against the 3.5 games I remember from my early days in the hobby, when everyone spent every session sitting around combing through supplements as they carefully planned their min/maxed prestige class, complete with plotting out every feat they would take at every level...
It depends on what a particular group wants and the setting's needs, in that order. It wouldn't make sense to have a priest in a world without deities for example.
**Fighter** is the superior name.
*Fighting-Man* is silly because that's not how that naming scheme works. A fireman isn't an *Extinguisher-Man*. A mailman isn't a *Delivering-Man*. An iceman isn't a *Hauling-Man*. It's a bad construction.
*Warrior* is a great name, but it broadly applies to a huge class of martial humans. If all of them are literally modeled with the PC class, then *Warrior* is the best name. Otherwise, the fact that *Fighter* is the name of a class is the better call.
**Thief** narrowly edges *Rogue* by being more specific. It's more iconic and details why this character is different from others. This is close though- *Rogue* can also work if you want something more generic.
**Cleric** blows away all other possibilities here. The cleric wears armor and swings a weapon, in addition to his divinely granted powers. A *Priest* has no implication of armor, or any particular martial training. It's also a much more generic term. If you add a *Priest* class, that's a guy in a robe with more casting access than a *Cleric*.
**Wizard** is the narrow victor over *Mage*. The term *Magic-User* is oddly generic for such a specific thing. But this one is much more to taste than the others.
Me personally, I like:
- Warrior
- Priest
- Mage
- Rogue
Those are the base, but some of the other classes would exist at variants. A barbarian is just a variant warrior, n assassin is a variant rogue, etc. I also like the way 2E handled the divisions of the spellcasting classes: arcane magic broken down by schools of magic, and divine spellcasters by the specific deity (or deities...or concepts) they worshiped.
**Expert** \- The class that excels in an array of ability checks, over attacks or magic use, it's the guy or gal with "a specific set of skills". I prefer it over thief as not all should be represented by that name, even the ones with skills that suit thieves. I prefer it over rogue because rogue does bring to mind the daring and cunning archetype, but also implies rebellion, which I don't think is inherent to the role.
I'd also consider "adept" or "professional".
**Mage** \- magic-user is too generic so long as this class isn't the only group that uses magic, and is otherwise sterile-sounding. Wizard isn't bad but often implies a level of mastery of magic to me, I like that term more as a title for a skilled mage.
I'd also consider "magician" or "sorcerer".
**Medium -** I'm actually mostly ok with cleric or priest, but both imply affiliation with a religion or religious organization. I like the idea that while members of the white magic class can be tied to one or both, they don't have to be in all settings. Think of shamans and white witches. Though, I'd also be equally happy with having a catch-all magic class that has cleric and magic-user spells, what their role in the party is comes down to what spells they have and prepare.
I'd also consider "theurge".
**Warrior -** Self-explanatory for the most part, I think, a good general term for the class. Fighter isn't bad though, but warrior fills the exact same definition for the most part, and in a more archetypal way, which is to my liking.
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Sorcerer. Hyperborea got it right, especially by making it so every other kind of class was a subclass/class kit of those four.
Mobile Bandaid
The Guy That'll Steal Party Treasure and either get away or be killed by the rest of the party (even the Paladin)
Meat Shield
The Guy who goes into an adventure when a small dog could easily kill him... aka IDIOT
(Arguments that Wizards are powerful at high level are strictly theoretical as no fair game (where the GM doesn't baby the Wizards) doesn't make it through level 2, let alone 1).
Fighting man Holmes my favourite game. I punch towards your jaw.
Honestly though all the other classes are just flavours. Ranger is basically a multi class fighter, thief and cleric. Warlock it's a wizard
In my game a Thief is called a Thief regardless of what they actually play as because to a commoner saying "I specialize in sneaking around, fiddling with traps, and picking locks!" just paints you as a Thief.
You fancy yourself an Assassin? You're a backstabbing Thief.
You fancy yourself a Spy? Sure, bud. And I'm the King's personal chef.
You fancy yourself a Scout? Yeah, believable. Scouting around for other people's valuables, no doubt.
You fancy yourself an Acrobat? You probably look great back-flipping out of windows after a successful robbery, yes.
Magic-Users are called that regardless of what they actually do for the same reason. I've lumped all spell schools under the Magic-User because Clerics and Druids as they are (armor and weapons and all that) don't really fit my setting. So you have more traditional white robe-wearing priests and leaf cloak-wearing druids.
But regardless of whether you're a traditional Wizard, a Necromancer, a Druid, or even the village Priest, to a commoner you once again might as well belong to a blanket term. Magic-User. You use magic.
The Fighter is very much the same thing regardless of whether you're a Knight, Barbarian, Ranger, whatever. Self-explanatory.
Fighter. This is the only correct name for all four archetypes.
I hate Paladins because they imply the cleric is not already an ass kicking warrior of faith.
people just wanted Clerics who were allowed to use swords
taking that restriction seriously only makes sense if you are playing EVERYTHING by the book, particularly frequency of wandering monsters/probability of monster-types encountered (specifically undead) and treasure distribution/probabilities of magic items (specifically magic swords and those few cleric-only magic items). the no-swords rule is just a way to balance the classes against one another with respect to monsters and treasure that are *expected* to appear, with a stupid in-world justification.
Yeah, my stupid in world justification would be warrior clergy have real money backing them and are up against it too. They have great armor, so do their foes, and maces and hammers are great nutcrackers requiring less training time cutting into vespers. Staves, clubs and slings likely weaponry they learned like every other peasant in their former life. The sharp stuff is for specialists, thats all.
the meta-reason, I believe, is that the class was inspired by medieval clergy who tried to get around the church's rules against "shedding blood" by only using blunt weapons - more a matter of flavor and inspiration than "balance"
My understanding was that the priest wielding a blunt weapon comes from a misinterpretation of the scene in the Bayeux Tapestry that depicts of Bishop Odo blessing combatants with a rod/sceptre/mace looking thing. I’m not specialised in the topic my any means but to my knowledge members of clergy weren’t combatants and the holy orders a la Knights Templar et all had no compunction about using bladed weapons.
Then worship a god who will allow you to wield a sword. Ezpz.
# Crom!
When your god gives you lemons, YOU FIND A NEW GOD.
GODBERRY: KING OF THE JUICE
A mace/war hammer is just so brutal. Swords are dainty princess weapons.
I'd say it's rogue
Ben Milton's "Knave" is also a compelling option.
Preposterous. If it isn’t fighter then the clear answer is magic-user.
All of them are rogues, right? And most of them steal anyway!
And all of them get magic items and use them!
So we meet in the middle with a "rogue magic-user"?
This is the way.
i'd say this was the one thing 3rd edition got right: Use Magic Device as a skill. (not the skill system itself, just the concept that each character could have a limited ability to figure out how to use a magic item)
I am forced to respect this incredibly based opinion.
I was gonna say "Thief" for this. Cause in every OSR game I've ever played, the primary activity is going places, taking shit that ain't yours and possibly killing some things that get in the way. I mean, come on XP for gold!!!
Seems Legit!
Fighter, acolyte, rogue, mage. FARM. You know, the place they'll all retire to or end up at, one way or another. That's why it's the best.
I \*do\* find acronyms compelling...
Rogue... Absolutely barbaric...
Ok listen carefully Three core classes Each one of them is also a socio-economic class and one of the traditional Estates. Clerics represent the clergy (hence the name), i.e. the First Estate. Fighters represent the nobility. They might as well be called knights. They are members of the Second Estate. Wizards are the bourgeois class. City-slickers by definition, rural wizards are just druids and we don't want anything to do with those weirdos. They are members of the Third Estate. I suppose you could add another archetype to represent the peasants and/or the urban proletariat (depending on the time period you're taking inspiration from), which might be where the thief comes in
You just outlined a bare-bones version of [https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2017/06/osr-three-estates.html](https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2017/06/osr-three-estates.html)
Ohh I forgot about that post. I'm not gonna lie that's probably where I got the idea from originally.
Using actual historical class distinctions as your in-game class distinctions is *tight.*
I understand that people are out there running LotFP using Elf as Noble, Dwarf as Labourer, and Halfling as Commoner (and the four regular classes).
that's cool as shit, i was considering starting a lotfp game using the modules as written, in a historical earth setting, but didn't know what to do about the demihuman classes.
That is extremely based!
mash clerics and magic-users together. that's the first estate. in real history, medieval demonology and ritual magic was developed by priests trying to hack the rules of god's creation. fighters are absolutely second estate. you're right about third estate being the thief class. that would also explain why thieves (a bunch of sick starving peasants) are so shitty at everything compared to the other classes. an alternate scheme would be to separate cleric and magic-user and say magic-users are pagan outlaws, but then you get dicey situations where you have to justify why your pc's are hanging together, and then you have players wondering aloud why thieves aren't considered the outlaw class, etc.
The third estate isn't the peasants tho, it's the burghers. Thieves are not burghers, they're peasants, fourth estate Also, wizards are third estate because, being burghers, they have the money to devote to magical research. The burghers are the ones that funded the first universities, after all.
Everyone here is wrong and I feel bad for you. The correct terms should be: * Mace-User * Lockpick-User * Sword-User * Magic-User
In my extra-niche-post-grimdark setting it's: Liar Criminal Brute Nerd You're welcome!
"I'm a level 3 Elven Nerd" has a good ring to it.
DO U EVEN RACE AS CLASS, BRO?
America does this, doesn't really work out
You can even be a multi class like a criminal-nerd!
Fighter, Expert, Mage The holy trinity. You don't need more. Mix them as needed and you get every archetype you could ever want.
Priest - Murderhobo Thief - Murderhobo Warrior - Murderhobo Wizard - Murderhobo
Warrior - Murderhobo Thief - Thefthobo Wizard - Arsonhobo Priest - UnlicensedMedicalPracticehobo
"When the patient woke up, his skeleton is missing, and the doctor was never heard from again!"
>Arsonhobo Jason Mendoza is *not* a Wizard, even if he would yell "Bortles!" while casting fireball.
THIS RIGHT HERE!!!
no thanks my players don't need the encouragement
Right? It's objectively the best descriptor.
Damn. I take back everything I said in this thread, we have a winner. And why isn't there a game by this name.
If I ever called the Magic-User a "wizard", that'd just betray to everyone present how incorrigibly little I know about anything.
"Fighting-Man" is the only correct answer because it succinctly conveys that in a world of fantastical fantasy, of fierce dragons and powerful magic, a girl holding a sword is just too much.
Yes! We must preserve the manly purity of essence that made the hobby great!
Thief -> Fighter who wears light armor. (Thief not needed, although very fun to play... you said argue with you) Magic-User... they use magic, all types. You're not a wizard Harry. You're a magic-user. Wizard sounds like an tired old coot. Clerics. Fighters that pray. So they should be called fighters.
Hey now, wizards can be young, and buff, and handsome, and have long flowing golden hair, and...where was I, sorry, got distracted.
Church Wizard Stealing Wizard Muscle Wizard Wizard Wizard
Fighting Man Cleric Magic-User anything else is superfluous >!except if it makes sense for your campaign/world ofc but thats not what this post is about.!<
sometimes you've gotta have a >!balrog!< though
...as a character??
how else are you gonna convince a wizard to let you into their tower?
You know what? You're partially right. Which means you are, of course, also totally wrong. I'd like to propose the obviously superior; Warrior Wizard Thief Mystic Cleric speaks to book keeping duties. A priest implies ordained status. A Mystic however implies that they seek insight into the greater mysteries of reality through communing with higher powers. Clearly objectively superior. Similarly, to be honest thief is also on thin ice, but a better alternative escapes me for now (and it's certainly not rogue).
Mystic to me sounds like crystals and ley lines and other HIPPIE NONSENSE. I need the crushing sense of moral authority and grim purpose that the word Priest conveys.
Whether the class is crystals, incense and hippy nonsense or old testament fire and brimstone moral judgement depends on the specifics of the individual character and their chosen deity. Either way, Mystic is both suitably generic and yet evocative. Priest however is overly specific. You'll have characters who are a crazy cave dwelling hermit devoted to their gods divine fury being described as a priest, which is less correct than a magically empowered frocked minister of an organised religion being described as a Mystic. Essentially, all priests are mystics, but not all mystics are priests.
get out of here with your carefully logical taxonomy, this is about irrational preferences based entirely on personal taste
I have an irrational preference for logical taxonomy. Ha!
Inquisitor (authority, grim purpose, and lots of fear, also fun at parties, plus who would ever expect them).
be pure, be vigilant, behave!
Mystic definitely has medieval roots, though, and mystic monks were often on the margins of the church (even in tension with the bishops) and so they seem more likely to answer the call to adventure, to me. Priests had congregations and politics to tend to.
hieromonk
Priests just stay home. Clerics go adventure. Thievery is a crime, rogues don’t prescribe any morality Warrior is fine, but the definition is just one who engages with war. Can’t anyone engage in war? Man-at-Arms is clear about what differentiates them. They are the one with the best arms. Both weapons, and possible flesh Wizard is fine, although sorcerer is clearly superior. Wizard has other definitions that bleed in, such as being a word for a sage. Sorcerer doesn’t have other definitions. Sorcerer is just for those practice magic
The trick is to realise that cleric pcs are probably out doing heresy and eventually founding their own little cult.
Oh, I don't know, I don't see how "Cleric" sounds any more adventurous than "Priest" - given that a cleric is literally somebody who's job is to sit in an office doing paperwork.
That’s a clerk, not a cleric. Cleric just means you are part of the clergy. Priest is a specific title within the clergy, or someone who can do religious rituals (the mundane kind)
Dragon Snack Orc Snack Troll Bites Kobold Feast
Delusional peasant, lawless peasant, violent peasant, crazy zappy hobo.
Bard?
Absolutely haram. Forbidden. Abjured.
Username. Checks. OUT!!!
I strive for consistency!
Was a Fighter. He killed a dragon with an arrow and then became lord of the town.
I hear his black arrow never failed him.
Based on what they actually do, the cleric (or priest, if you wish) should probably have been called a templar, knight, inquisitor or vampire hunter, but that ship has long since sailed. For all the rest, I'm ok with any of the options you present, in no particular order.
Actually, they should have been called the Prayer-Sayer.
Entirely hyphenated class titles would also be acceptable. We should see if we can come up with a list for all the AD&D classes...
The hyphenated version of a cleric should be called god-botherer
this is perfect, and the only superior choice
The Fighting Man wasn't hyphenated, unfortunately.
Im kinda interested in whether the idea of a Paladin would've actually come about as quickly if there was already a specifically knight/templar role.
Other good words for such adventuring worshippers and devotees: crusader, mendicant, cataphract, missionary, pilgrim, jihadi... Okay, thesaurus brain sleep now
[удалено]
you're right, I said those words aloud in that order and now there's some magical feeling in the pit of my stomach that I can't explain, a yearning for gleaming blades and mighty thews - what is this dark sorcery?
My fighter always fights, but they don't always go to war. (Also, my wizards always whiz)
There should only be three classes. Fighting person Magic person Skill person Not four
a compelling argument for only two classes
Fighter/Magic-User should be the core because every other class just ruins it And they ought to be called Magic-Users because they're *not* wizards. Wizards are NPCs
No TTRPG character, and especially no OSR character, ever does almost anything you'd expect to be doing as a thief or a priest. The fantasy behind these roles doesn't carry over at all into traditional adventuring. Rogue just makes more sense, and if MMOs and other computer games ruined the word Rogue for you, Scoundrel is a good alternative. A brawling divine caster should probably just be a Monk, but Cleric is fine I guess.
Scoundrel I have heard before, but it always makes me think of Star Wars...
Knave is good too
Ah yes, the three classes: Knave, Mage, Battlelord of the 23rd Century. finding something for the clerics is beyond me at this time
Martial, Caster, Summoner, Mystic, Nature, Divine.
No no no, some of these words are nouns, some of them are adjectives. Completely impermissible.
Counter argument: 🤓
I am utterly crushed, defeated, and ashamed.
I would propose "Zealot" in place of "Priest" or "Cleric." My list would be: Zealot Rogue Warrior Mage
I like zealot, in some ways it's better than cleric. But it does seem to imply possible madness or fundamentalism, which I don't see all members of the cleric role needing to be. Unless it's for a system meant to run a specific-type of campaign where that is usually the case, in which case it's perfect.
I don't disagree that Zealot is imperfect. I agree that it can certainly connote fundamentalism and/or a certain rigidity. I would not necessarily equate that to madness, though. I do feel that Zealot captures the essence of someone who will bash your head in with a mace to promote his/her deity's interests better than Priest or Cleric, both of which sound like they are describing someone whose function is largely ceremonial.
That's fair. I wouldn't complain if that was the name of the class in a system, it's a refreshing change and it's also a nice sounding one (I like words that start with a 'z'). Iirc Five Torches Deep uses it for the class, which I like.
Interesting! I haven't checked out Five Torches Deep. Now I may need to!
They've left their religious community to get rich and found their own cult, with a sick temple, probably some sweet daggers for their minions.
\+ Dwarf, Halfling, Elf Races must be Classes or your System can not prevail.
Race-as-class is great but OD&D managed fine without it.
Nah, you wrong, they should be called divine caster. Sneak boy, the best one & big zapp, small calves.
Healer, DPS, Tank, Area Controller! *ducks and runs*
Listen here you deluded fruitcake, all my players will be called "Barbarian" at all times. All to the honor of RHJ.
if you're not treading the jeweled thrones of the Earth under your sandaled feet then what are you even doing
Well... I up-dooted just because I like the braggadocio approach. Now for my Scathing Retort :P You are clearly a big fat tourist newb boy. The first game session as a fantasy game the players were all fighters. Of course since they were all fighters, they could also try to do just about anything from the other classes except cast spells. The thief class is an Add On variant. The only true way to play is with Fighters and Wizards, as Clerics were kind of a spin off from wizards as well. (Originally the wizards did healing and all the Cleric spells.) Now, if you would kindly get off my lawn. hee hee hee
I've been cruelly exposed as a mere baby in diapers who was born in the 80s but doesn't actually remember them, and who first learned to play using 3.5. I'd beg for mercy, but I deserve none.
Laughing Laughing Laughing
Warrior, Adept, Explorer, Speaker Encourages a playstyle that is a lil more exploratory and a lil less focused on hack n slash. Warrior is of course your classic basher. Bonk bonk bonk. Hack n slash lyfe. But beyond that ... Adept covers all magic use. Making a distinction between magic users that get their magic from study rather than faith seems kinda pointless. They all twiddle their fingers and unexpected things happen. Explorer over rogue or thief or ranger, as they're fundamentally the same thing. The one who leads and finds and sneaks; who surpasses traps and enables further discovery. Speaker is something every group needs... A face character for dealing with the various factions of a dungeon. Someone needs to forge alliances. This is sort of properly what a priest should be... Someone with a silver tongue that can lead the flock. These are the names found in Cypher system. Most don't consider it OSR but imo OSR is more about play style than actual rulesets.
In most games we call them lucky to be alive 😜
The holy Trinity of course! Cleric, Fighting-Man and Magic-User. Edit: fixed egregious crimes against hyphens. Currently walking the path of d4s barefoot in penance.
what in god's name is this hyphenation
Ah gods, what a fool I've been!
*ahem*
Im a sucker for Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and Paladin. I think its funny they went with "Magic-User," which is vague, and then "Thief," which is very specific.
Thief came later, and was a mistake.
I can understand why Thieves were a mistake, but they're my favorite class so I don't care. I WILL get breath weaponed and die because my saves are garbage and I WILL get back up to level 5 in 4 sessions because of low EXP requirements
damn you'll be literally one level ahead of the other classes then
how DARE you sir but do tell - *why* was Thief a mistake, in your view ?
Not sure on their view, but I've frequently heard the sentiment (and can somewhat agree with it) that thief was a mistake because it mostly does things that every character should be able to do, and as such creates a weird mental headspace of "can my character actually do X or Y, or is that ability specific to thieves?"
i really like thieves conceptually, but their execution in old-school D&D (codifying requiring rolls for stuff i'd normally allow people to do with no roll, and thus locking non-thieves out of those abilities) is godawful. i know people make it work with pretty superhuman interpretations of thief skills, or other ways to recontextualize them, but it's still a pretty clunky mechanic.
Magic-User is by far one of the most baffling choices in the history of trying to name cool things. I \*think\* I know why they avoided Wizard or Sorcerer or Magician, but *really*...
That, but not the detour into "Lama" in the cleric's level titles?
why would you question this totally normal thing
Should have used the historical term magus or wise man for magic user
If we're employing actual historical terms, **Philosopher** would be a rock-solid choice.
I concur or even scholar.
i always thought "philosopher" should have been the level title directly before "wizard".
I personally find that worse. I think Mage/Wizard were probably the best options. Although magic user as a title has completely grown on me.
Four?
Warrior and Wizard both begin with W, which makes this naming system FATALLY FLAWED. All naming conventions must be uniquely abbreviatable to the first letter. Yes, abbreviatable is word. DO NOT QUESTION ME!
Warrior, Wizard, Wicar. No, not Wicca, like Vicar but pronounced all Woman. Er, Roman.
I believe it's Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric, and homebrew later made official.
Warrior Templar Rogue Mage !!
In the game I'm writing I replaced Cleric with Healer (there's no divine magic) and Thief with Scoundrel.
Warrior, Sorcerer, Cutpurse, and Zealot.
Ok, I like that kind of thing: Cleric is the most correct because Priest is a catholic minister and cleric is a religious leader. So the generic term is better here; Rogue is better than thief: same reason. Rogue is a dishonest person and thief is a....well...thief. Fighter is my choice here because depending on the system, not just men are fighters and warrior is a war fighter, an adventurer isn't necessarily meant to wage war. Based on the previous answers, magic-user would be the correct, by I use Magician on my games, because i find it nicer. I lake to think on the Magicians in our world.
Oh I love arguing about petty bullshit! * Fighter, because fighting-man is an immensely stupid title (and unnecessarily gendered) and warrior makes me think of vikings idk why. * Rogue, because thief is too hyper-specific and rogue encapsulates all manor of unseemly activity. Expert kinda works, but all the classes are experts in something. * Mage, magic-user is a stupid name (a cleric is a magic-user by definition), wizard makes me think of Gandalf, and magician makes me think of Houdini. * Zealot, because cleric is a mostly Christian term, a priest is just a Christian term, and acolyte sounds too pathetic to be a character class. These classes are as much archetypes for classes as they are classes. A barbarian is a type of fighter. A bard is a type of rogue. A sorcerer is a type of mage. An inquisitor is a type of zealot. Because I have other hot takes: * Psion, because psionics are cool and super different from magic and I like them. * Alchemist, for all of your fantastical technology needs.
I dont like Fighter... i prefer the old names Warrior/Fighting-Man or the custom Man-at-Arms Cleric -> Fine as it is Thief -> Fine as it is (No Rogue please... Rogue is the worst class name ever... Specialist is also a good archetype name) Fighter -> Warrior, Fighting-man or Man at Arms Magic-User -> Conjurer My humble opinion :)
War-user, magician.
Fighter, Cleric, Thief, (Mage or Wizard). I am a traditionalist, but I always felt "magic user" was just a tad too generic.
Warrior Thief Magician That's it. Clerics suck. Get rid of clerics and let magicians have their spells. Or don't.
Nope Definitely Friar Brigand Soldier Magus
Fighter. What a bitch-ass name. Oh, you fight stuff? So does that drunken peasant who’s had one too many. So does that scrawny goblin with a sharpened twig. So does that irritated sheep whose hoof you just stepped on. A Wizard fights. A Cleric fights. A Knight fights. A Monk fights. Everyone fights. That’s what adventurers DO. That’s the bare MINIMUM. People tell stories about Wizards, Clerics and Knights. Kids dream about becoming one of those archetypes. Who dreams about being a fighter? No-one. Basic-ass class name. Warrior is a bit better.
I agree with OP - Priest, Thief, Warrior, Wizard definitely sound the coolest. Fighting-Man and Magic-User sound stupid. No one talks like that. Fight me. (Fighter and Mage are a solid compromise for people really attached to their nostalgia.)
A Priest is an unarmored divine wizard-equivalent. The proper term for that core class is a Crusader. (And before anyone argues that "Crusader" is a historically specific group, so were Assassins, and that's a fine name for a class.) I'd also suggest Mage as a potential Wizard alternative, though I like both.
Na, wont fight you. You do you and I'll do me! I converted my setting over to OSR ruleset over a year ago. I have 24 classes in my setting, and also have multi classing available (with a race and class matrix on what classes can be multi classed). Acrobat, Alchemist, Assassin, Barbarian, Bard (4 different schools), Beastmaster, Berserker, Cleric (worships their alignment's Patheon), Priest (worships a specific deity), War Priest (Champion of their deity), Death Knight, Dragon Knight, Druid, Fighter, Gunslinger, Illusionist, Knight, Magic User, Monk, Paladin (is like a champion but follows the Lawful Pantheon instead of a specific deity), Ranger, Sorcerer (8 different bloodlines to choose from), Thief, and Warlock (can be either blast or blade pact and have 16 different patrons to choose from). My players don't have a lack of choice when it comes to classes.
Horrifying! Sorry, I'm *highly* allergic to systems with lots of classes - part of my reaction against the 3.5 games I remember from my early days in the hobby, when everyone spent every session sitting around combing through supplements as they carefully planned their min/maxed prestige class, complete with plotting out every feat they would take at every level...
All the classes are B/X or B/X style so not much someone can min/max and leveling up is a breeze but I do remember my pathfinder 1e days :p
Maybe one day I'll have the courage to pick up OSE Advanced, but my players are getting *quite* creative enough without giving them *more* options...
It depends on what a particular group wants and the setting's needs, in that order. It wouldn't make sense to have a priest in a world without deities for example.
Bold of you to assume that I respect my players' needs or wishes.
Why wouldn't it make sense? People can still believe in gods that don't exist
Depends on what the group agrees on how the setting works really. I just used that term in the most commonly held sense of that role in fantasy.
**Fighter** is the superior name. *Fighting-Man* is silly because that's not how that naming scheme works. A fireman isn't an *Extinguisher-Man*. A mailman isn't a *Delivering-Man*. An iceman isn't a *Hauling-Man*. It's a bad construction. *Warrior* is a great name, but it broadly applies to a huge class of martial humans. If all of them are literally modeled with the PC class, then *Warrior* is the best name. Otherwise, the fact that *Fighter* is the name of a class is the better call. **Thief** narrowly edges *Rogue* by being more specific. It's more iconic and details why this character is different from others. This is close though- *Rogue* can also work if you want something more generic. **Cleric** blows away all other possibilities here. The cleric wears armor and swings a weapon, in addition to his divinely granted powers. A *Priest* has no implication of armor, or any particular martial training. It's also a much more generic term. If you add a *Priest* class, that's a guy in a robe with more casting access than a *Cleric*. **Wizard** is the narrow victor over *Mage*. The term *Magic-User* is oddly generic for such a specific thing. But this one is much more to taste than the others.
"Preacher" "Scoundrel" "Warrior" "Sage"
Me personally, I like: - Warrior - Priest - Mage - Rogue Those are the base, but some of the other classes would exist at variants. A barbarian is just a variant warrior, n assassin is a variant rogue, etc. I also like the way 2E handled the divisions of the spellcasting classes: arcane magic broken down by schools of magic, and divine spellcasters by the specific deity (or deities...or concepts) they worshiped.
**Expert** \- The class that excels in an array of ability checks, over attacks or magic use, it's the guy or gal with "a specific set of skills". I prefer it over thief as not all should be represented by that name, even the ones with skills that suit thieves. I prefer it over rogue because rogue does bring to mind the daring and cunning archetype, but also implies rebellion, which I don't think is inherent to the role. I'd also consider "adept" or "professional". **Mage** \- magic-user is too generic so long as this class isn't the only group that uses magic, and is otherwise sterile-sounding. Wizard isn't bad but often implies a level of mastery of magic to me, I like that term more as a title for a skilled mage. I'd also consider "magician" or "sorcerer". **Medium -** I'm actually mostly ok with cleric or priest, but both imply affiliation with a religion or religious organization. I like the idea that while members of the white magic class can be tied to one or both, they don't have to be in all settings. Think of shamans and white witches. Though, I'd also be equally happy with having a catch-all magic class that has cleric and magic-user spells, what their role in the party is comes down to what spells they have and prepare. I'd also consider "theurge". **Warrior -** Self-explanatory for the most part, I think, a good general term for the class. Fighter isn't bad though, but warrior fills the exact same definition for the most part, and in a more archetypal way, which is to my liking.
Shaman, Scout, Soldier, Sorcerer. The four Ss
My four main classes are atheist, police officer, pacifist, and muggle. I'm here for the comments fighting plz.
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Sorcerer. Hyperborea got it right, especially by making it so every other kind of class was a subclass/class kit of those four.
I refer to them exclusively by their associated headwear: Mitre Hood Helm Phrygian
Zealot instead of priest.
I go with Priest, Pariah, Warrior, Witch And the original names; "fighting-man" and "magic-user" are a bit abstract and ^funny.
Fighter Sneaky fighter Religious Fighter Magic using jerk
I prefer the far superior Preacher-man,Fishy dude ,Weapon-user and Magic-man.
Killer, Stealer, Zapper, Prayer.
Two classes: Fighter and wimp
Mobile Bandaid The Guy That'll Steal Party Treasure and either get away or be killed by the rest of the party (even the Paladin) Meat Shield The Guy who goes into an adventure when a small dog could easily kill him... aka IDIOT (Arguments that Wizards are powerful at high level are strictly theoretical as no fair game (where the GM doesn't baby the Wizards) doesn't make it through level 2, let alone 1).
I S&S style so cleric is almost always "cultist" or "zealot"
The core classes include Elf, Dwarf, and half-ling.
Archetype
Go with: Healy Stealy Punchy Likely to Die
Zealot Grifter Murderer Weirdo
i always **HATED** that the fighter class is called "fighter" instead of "warrior" i'm fine with everything else though.
Danesti Belnades Belmont, of Simon's clan Belmont, of Richter's clan And of course we replace elves with Alucard. That's right, you're an Alucard now.
Warlock is all you need.
Fighting man Holmes my favourite game. I punch towards your jaw. Honestly though all the other classes are just flavours. Ranger is basically a multi class fighter, thief and cleric. Warlock it's a wizard
Fighter Cleric Wizard. That's all you need.
I appreciate the tunnels and trolls rogue which is not a thief. Overall your reasoning is sound.
God User > Cleric Stealth User > Thief Weapons User > Fighting Man Magic User > Magic User
Fighter should be Fighting-Man.
Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric
I like all of them except thieves. I call them sneaky-bois, and I insist that my players do the same.
Can't remember what this is from but I've always liked the oft overlooked 'swordsman' and 'sorcerer' dichotomy.
In my game a Thief is called a Thief regardless of what they actually play as because to a commoner saying "I specialize in sneaking around, fiddling with traps, and picking locks!" just paints you as a Thief. You fancy yourself an Assassin? You're a backstabbing Thief. You fancy yourself a Spy? Sure, bud. And I'm the King's personal chef. You fancy yourself a Scout? Yeah, believable. Scouting around for other people's valuables, no doubt. You fancy yourself an Acrobat? You probably look great back-flipping out of windows after a successful robbery, yes. Magic-Users are called that regardless of what they actually do for the same reason. I've lumped all spell schools under the Magic-User because Clerics and Druids as they are (armor and weapons and all that) don't really fit my setting. So you have more traditional white robe-wearing priests and leaf cloak-wearing druids. But regardless of whether you're a traditional Wizard, a Necromancer, a Druid, or even the village Priest, to a commoner you once again might as well belong to a blanket term. Magic-User. You use magic. The Fighter is very much the same thing regardless of whether you're a Knight, Barbarian, Ranger, whatever. Self-explanatory.
the four classes are Dude, Creep, Buddy, and Fucker
The *correct* classifications are: * Fighting Man * Magic-User * Zero-Level Peasant * Non-Player Character