|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All classes from the core rulebook are designed as adventuring classes. I bet there are a ton of "rangers" who are simply commoners who specialized in being forest guides or whatever. So you can consider the mechanical classes in Pathfinder to be the representation of an adventuring equivalent of their respective profession.
In Pathfinder, the convention seems to be that an adventurer is one who travels the world and makes his money by finding treasure or for essentially mercenary work (someone needs your help as an adventurer, they pay you to get something done for them). However, the actual word "adventurer" has a broader meaning - for example, an explorer who sets out to find a new land, a pirate or viking or something who is on a raiding trip, even a merchant who travels further than most.
|
'Adventurer' has become an artificial game concept which I have come to despise.
Just like I don't want people to be able to glance at my character and know what class/archetype he is, I try very hard to make each character something that cannot be dismissed as a mere 'adventurer'. I give them skills and equipment which lets them function as a normal person. My arcane casters wear normal clothes instead of dresses and hats with stars and moons sewn on them, my barbarians wear more than a loincloth, etc.
So after all that effort to make the entire party look like an ordinary group of people, I hate it when we walk into a bar and the barkeep says, 'Ah, adventurers!'
|
To me the only class that doesnt fit well into the adventurer concept is the Inquisitor....
Role: Inquisitors tend to move from place to place, chasing down enemies and researching emerging threats. As a result, they often travel with others, if for no other reason than to mask their presence. Inquisitors work with members of their faith whenever possible, but even such allies are not above suspicion.
He/She is not an adventurer, although they might travel with an adventurerfor a short time.
@Malachi
I usually dress my barbarian in a dress and hat with stars and moons on them...but with mithral armor under the dress.....
|
|
'Adventurer' has become an artificial game concept which I have come to despise.
Just like I don't want people to be able to glance at my character and know what class/archetype he is, I try very hard to make each character something that cannot be dismissed as a mere 'adventurer'. I give them skills and equipment which lets them function as a normal person. My arcane casters wear normal clothes instead of dresses and hats with stars and moons sewn on them, my barbarians wear more than a loincloth, etc.
So after all that effort to make the entire party look like an ordinary group of people, I hate it when we walk into a bar and the barkeep says, 'Ah, adventurers!'
Not sure I'm understanding what you mean here Malachi.
Dot.
|
|
Not sure I'm understanding what you mean here Malachi.'Adventurer' has become an artificial game concept which I have come to despise.
Just like I don't want people to be able to glance at my character and know what class/archetype he is, I try very hard to make each character something that cannot be dismissed as a mere 'adventurer'. I give them skills and equipment which lets them function as a normal person. My arcane casters wear normal clothes instead of dresses and hats with stars and moons sewn on them, my barbarians wear more than a loincloth, etc.
So after all that effort to make the entire party look like an ordinary group of people, I hate it when we walk into a bar and the barkeep says, 'Ah, adventurers!'
At the Royal Ball there is a dashing captain with his bright uniform and dress sword. But the sword is a +4 keen rapier, and he wears a +3 mithral shirt underneath his uniform.
The Royal Wizard's apprentice is wearing his formal black suit since he hasn't earned the wizard's official robes yet. His wands are concealed in secret pockets and in his boots. Those rings and bracelets are not just for show either.
Nor are the ones worn by the younger princess. Her exquisite gown and shoes make her feel clumsy, but her monk training lets her move more gracefully than the rest of these pampered ladies.
On duty a mithral breastplate polishes up nicely, and the wearer smiles to himself as he imagines what his barbarian parents would think of him in his civilised finery.
When the ninja assassins abseil through the glass ceiling our heroes leap into action. Are they 'adventurers'?
Yet when these three escape to the safehouse to plan a way to end this invasion, the barkeep says, 'Ah, adventurers!', as if the status is both a real thing (it isn't; it's just used as an in-game synonym for 'player character') and visibly obvious to everyone who glances at them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think thats just a bad call for wording on your GMs part.
"Ah, Travelers! what can I get you?" if the bartender had never seen you before might have been a better line.
But then you could complain "How did he know we were travelers? We didnt have any luggage and were dressed in our finery!"
So what would have been a better welcoming line for a bartender?
What would you label your character/group? Protagonists?
Edit: sorry the wording reads somewhat antagonistic, not trying to be.
|
|
To me the only class that doesnt fit well into the adventurer concept is the Inquisitor....
Role: Inquisitors tend to move from place to place, chasing down enemies and researching emerging threats. As a result, they often travel with others, if for no other reason than to mask their presence. Inquisitors work with members of their faith whenever possible, but even such allies are not above suspicion.
He/She is not an adventurer, although they might travel with an adventurerfor a short time.
I think this depends on your definition of "adventurer". If you mean "mercenary/tomb robber", then no, Inquisitors don't really fit the bill. Nor would paladins.
For a more general usage, there's no reasons they couldn't work with a group for longer periods, especially if that group is on an extended adventure that's important to the inquisitor's task.
I agree a paladin would not be a good choice for an exploration (tomb raider as you call it) group.
I usually think of adventurer as that person who decides that instead of staying home and doing paperwork, goes out and explores, does crazy things, hunts monsters, etc. Not really something inherent to a class so much as a character. The paladin who goes on a quest to smite evil, the rogue out on the hunt for loot, and the barbarian out in the woods are all adventurers having adventures!
I agree a paladin would not be a good choice for an exploration (tomb raider as you call it) group.
Actually, the classic paladin -- Sir Lancelot springs to mind -- was very much an adventurer. The whole point of the Round Table was to provide a structure for the various knights errant to go out on adventures and do great deeds of renown for the betterment of all.
True, but I was jumping off this "adventurer is one who travels the world and makes his money by finding treasure or for essentially mercenary work" a couple of posts up. Treasure hunting and mercenary work aren't really paladin quests.
No, but random acts of violence and collecting stuff are:
THEN was the high feast made ready, and the king was wedded at Camelot unto Dame Guenever in the church of Saint Stephen's, with great solemnity. And as every man was set after his degree, Merlin went to all the knights of the Round Table, and bade them sit still, that none of them remove. For ye shall see a strange and a marvellous adventure. Right so as they sat there came running in a white hart into the hall, and a white brachet next him, and thirty couple of black running hounds came after with a great cry, and the hart went about the Table Round as he went by other boards. The white brachet bit him by the buttock and pulled out a piece, wherethrough the hart leapt a great leap and overthrew a knight that sat at the board side; and therewith the knight arose and took up the brachet, and so went forth out of the hall, and took his horse and rode his way with the brachet. Right so anon came in a lady on a white palfrey, and cried aloud to King Arthur, Sir, suffer me not to have this despite, for the brachet was mine that the knight led away. I may not do therewith, said the king.
With this there came a knight riding all armed on a great horse, and took the lady away with him with force, and ever she cried and made great dole. When she was gone the king was glad, for she made such a noise. Nay, said Merlin, ye may not leave these adventures so lightly; for these adventures must be brought again or else it would be disworship to you and to your feast. I will, said the king, that all be done by your advice. Then, said Merlin, let call Sir Gawaine, for he must bring again the white hart. Also, sir, ye must let call Sir Tor, for he must bring again the brachet and the knight, or else slay him. Also let call King Pellinore, for he must bring again the lady and the knight, or else slay him. And these three knights shall do marvellous adventures or they come again. Then were they called all three as it rehearseth afore, and each of them took his charge, and armed them surely. But Sir Gawaine had the first request, and therefore we will begin at him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you as players and GMs consider an 'Adventurer'?
To me an adventurer is the non-accademic part of Indiana Jones life, for the most part at least.
I'd pretty much agree there.
Do all character classes and archtypes fit the Adventurer concept
Not automatically, but they can support it if a character is designed that way. Some are certainly more suitable than others, and some have more profession-orientated options open to them. The NPC Gallery in the GameMastery Guide provides some good examples.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Murderhobos, and yes.
Murderhoboin' is a hard life.
Murderhoboin' is a hard life.
The only life worth living XD
|
|
I can't remember the last time I made a PC that was motivated by money, or hunted monsters for the sake of it, or whose profession was 'dungeon explorer'; they were all people who were swept up in adventure.
Those stereotypical motivations are just a few out of hundreds of possibilities, and it annoys me when adventure writers assume that every PC has those few motivations.
I'm working on a setting at the moment where in a post-plague kingdom, a lot of roles and jobs fall to adventurers. The kingdom is quite reliant upon them. It is that old ancient civilisation Conan type geo-political setting of yes the warlords have men, but its the adventurers that deal with the problems and hard quests.
In other settings like golarion though, I think of adventurers a bit differently. There are many professions and classes that could get involved in adventuring, but many of them aren't the chaotic freebooter. A caravan guard may stick with that job all their life until they retire or die, same with a bard of a court, that doesn't make them adventurers.
They need an elf, a dwarf and a party of misfits to be real adventurers!
I can't remember the last time I made a PC that was motivated by money, or hunted monsters for the sake of it, or whose profession was 'dungeon explorer'; they were all people who were swept up in adventure.
Those stereotypical motivations are just a few out of hundreds of possibilities, and it annoys me when adventure writers assume that every PC has those few motivations.It annoys me too, but I understand it.
When you're writing a single not-introductory adventure for publication you have no idea what PCs are going to play it or what their motivations are going to be. You can assume they're not going to be created for this module with plot hooks tied into it. So rather than giving no hooks at all, "You were hired to..." is a simple default that allows them to give a briefing and motive in a small amount of space.
You'll notice that APs don't usually work that way. When you assume characters are being created for a given game, you can work plot hooks into character creation suggestions.I do suspect there's something of a feedback loop though. People learn by reading, running and playing modules and assume that's the best way to do it and that those are what "Adventurers" should be about.
And then we get to murderhobos.
Murderhobos are close to bandits for me, and a group of killers that have been sought out because they do violence for pay.
Bandits as well may never be true adventurers, but they may go on adventures and be more than common bandits. Maybe they level up to murderhobo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some good examples here. I think all of the classes/archetypes can fit as long as the GM has provided motivation. This is why I think backstories (even brief ones) are critical. The GM needs something to work with other than "you all meet at a tavern and decide to try to get rich quick at the local dungeon."
Yep, got to love those backstories.