Actually names are just names. If my class and your class are doing the same thing then the name PF gave them does not really matter much.
Sneaky guy who can disable devices, and is good in combat could be a ranger, rogue, inquisitor, or slayer.
Unless of course you are using metagame concepts such as "sneak attack" then you actually have a wide variety of ways to realize a concept.
People in the real world - and in most fiction - don't fall neatly into categories like those found in class-based rpgs.
Think more in terms of what types of traits a person might have that would lead him/her to approach things in a way that a slayer might. For example, (s)he may be a calm, focused person who tends to latch onto one task at a time and plan carefully, rather than someone who tends to like to multitask.
He may share some of the same skills with a huntsman, soldier, and a thief, but that doesn't mean that he shares anything else in common with them. He may not even be focused on hunting and killing monsters per se. He could just be a fighter or adventurer who tends to take that approach when there is a foe to fight.
Don't think in terms of him being a "Slayer" - think of a character who would have that particular mindset, and don't worry about the label. In the Pathfinder world, any character who does a lot of travel, adventuring, or fighting might end up picking up those types of skills over time.
I suppose that the thing that is going on, is whether you consider rules ONLY the numbers, OR rules as what's in the rulebooks and PRD.
IF the former, yes, they are only skillsets RAW. There is absolutely NO reason a fighter is called a fighter, or a wizard called a wizard. It could be called Skill set 1, and skill set 2 if only the numbers count and the rest of the rules don't. The names and fluff are meaningless stuff that waste space and have no reason for being.
IF you consider ALL the stuff, then hey, the names suddenly have a reason to be there, and the fluff is actually well worth being in the books.
Both are extremes of different styles of roleplaying.
What's disturbing is that people are going to the extreme of the former and NOT ALLOWING ANYONE any other playstyle or to see anything differently. They don't even allow someone on a middle ground in between the two, much less other less extreme views!
I understand here are different playstyles, my intent is NOT to change yours.
It is to tell you, there are different ways to play, and different ways to say, hey, these are the RAW as per how we play. If it's in the rulebooks, it's actually pertinent to the game!
And some of it is how we view things people do in the real world and relate it to the game.
You don't see it, no problem...
But trying to chase anyone and everyone who doesn't play like you, and who sees the game differently from Pathfinder and gaming and hoping they won't play because you think anything that isn't your playstyle is bad/wrong...is pretty low.
IMO.
I only see one extreme being represented by everyone (except for me) in this discussion. Normally practicing such an extreme side of an opinion and telling everyone else to get lost, even those (like me) who really has no problem with you playing as you want and having your opinion as long as you accept that others might not play the same way...is a good way to kill the game eventually.
I tend to see the CRB as rules and it's not just a numbers thing, but the fluff and other stuff is also part of the rules.
Now, if you don't want to see it that way, that's fine. But telling others that the rules in the book aren't something for them to pay heed to or aren't important...
At least things they see as rules...that's particularly disturbing.
Nix ranger from that and add it to the list of in-game-world identifiables with wizard. Ranger is not only a class, but a related occupation, and was/is a real thing in real life, and definitely is an identifiable occupation/class (if you will) in Middle Earth and other fantasy sources.
It is. But it is one a slayer could fill, too. Or a barbarian or hunter. A guy who can track, knows the wilderness and looks rugged doesn't have to be class ranger.
Well, we'll disagree to disagree.
No, I'm afraid you're actively misunderstanding.
In regards to the engineer, the difference between a skill set and a class is the class HAS to have the degree, the skillset is Joe off the street who says he's an engineer but never went to school and couldn't pass calculus.
Except that if Joe off the street couldn't pass calculus, then he doesn't have the skillset (since calculus is one of the skills).
You really want Joe designing you skyscraper because he has the supposed skills? He may...actually, he may have studied architecture...but he's not licensed, and he doesn't have a degree. He may have the skills, but he doesn't have the class.
And that's the point. If he has the skills, then he can produce a functional design for a skyscraper even without the license.
The point is, YOU KNOW what a surgeon is...you KNOW what an engineer is.
Yeah, funny thing about the surgeon. My last trip to New York but one, I actually met a surgeon. He was driving my cab in from La Guardia. You see, he had received his medical degree from a school in Uganda or something like that, and while had the skillset -- he had put in the "time, effort, and training" -- he didn't have the (US) license, an increasingly serious problem, especially with the US facing a physician shortage. He had the class (the skillset), but not the profession (the paycheck).
At the same time, there are also lots of people who have the degree and possibly even the profession without the skillset, because someone had a talk with someone at the medical school.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
Considering your opinion on the subject is that a slayer, whose skillset includes a bunch of things (all of which can fall into the general purview of any mundane guy with a sword/axe/daggers and some know-how), is ONLY capable of being any of a small niche of characters (namely assassins)? Yeah, I think you're outright wrong.
There is literally nothing in either the rules or the spirit of the game that says "X has to be portrayed by Y," and more to the point, the fact that this is a common misconception is the #1 problem that prevents many people from actually enjoying Pathfinder.
The name of each class is fluff based on the general archetype it was originally designed to fill. It is neither a pair of shackles nor meaningless, but it is not the end-all-be-all of what each character that has levels in it can do.
|
What's disturbing is that people are going to the extreme of the former and NOT ALLOWING ANYONE any other playstyle or to see anything differently. They don't even allow someone on a middle ground in between the two, much less other less extreme views!
You know, you're the one telling people they aren't allowed to use certain classes to represent certain concepts, and that every PC of a particular class has to have the same background.
That approach is long gone, and good riddance. It was one of the selling points of 3rd Edition D&D, and the reason there's no longer a 'Thief' class.
Because enough people told WotC they were tired of being forced into a tired niche, of the 'CG/CN/CE/NE untrustworthy douchebag' and prevented from making their LG 'security chief'. Or LN 'secret agent'. So we now have the Rogue, who can be all those concepts, and more.
WotC and Paizo printed several series of articles, showing how to realise different character concepts using different combinations of multiclassed skill packages. They certainly viewed the classes as a buffet, whose flavour was mutable to taste.
They give examples in the class introductions, but those are meant to be inspirational, not a straightjacket.