Fighter Rogue Mage Cleric and class purity

[freakytapir]

Lately I've been wondering, why do nearly all class based games use these?

I mean, I know why MMO's use the Healer/Tank/DPS model. It engages players in different ways, and if done well can be really fun. It also means that when I play Healer or Tank, or DPS, I get a totally different fight, even against the same boss.

But in a single player game ... I wonder, is it necessary?
Does my party need a healer? In nearly every RPG that answer is yes.
Now, I'm going to limit my discussion to the typical party based turn based games. (Older final fantasies and the lot.)

But why? I mean, it stems from the old Dungeons and dragons adventuring party didn't it?
The fighter is up front, tanking some skeletons
The cleric is healing this booboos.
The wizard is being a bit of a neckbeard for most of the session because he only has one spell, and he's not wasting it on 'trash' while the ...
The rogue is ... Well, he's not really doing much of anything really, because there's no traps to disarm this encounter, and skeletons are immune to Backstabbing.

Because that's the problem with that old system. It was completely broken, and a lot of games just copied it wholesale to a different medium, only making it worse.

Why does the boss deal that much damage? So the Healer has something to do.
Why is the mage's defense crap? Because he's wearing robes.
Why are his HP so low ? Because he's frail.
Why do his attacks use MP, and the fighter's don't? Uh, because spell slots?
Why does the rogue have nothing to do in combat? Because he has out of combat utility.

A lot of wonky game design stems from 40 years ago.
Why are we still using these mechanics combined with these ... Archetypes?
I mean, I get storywise why we get Fighters Rogues Clerics and Mages. They appeal to different fantasies.
The heroic knight, the wise yet fragile mage, the nimble rogue, compassionate cleric/white mage.
These are great story tropes and character fantasies, but ...
Why do they have to link to the mechanics in such a ... predictable way?

If I choose to be the mage as a 'character fantasy' but I want to play a tank as mechanical identity?
What If I want to be the Rogue that heals?
Why can't my fighter be the one throwing around the big nukes?
Why shouldn't my white mage be slicing and dicing sometimes, Vampire hunter style?

Class balance? I mean, I got a whole lot to say about that, and I think ... Classes as a package traditionally require a whole lot of things to be 'Bundled together'.
Why is the wizard frail? Because his spells deal more damage.
Why can't the cleric attack? Because he can heal.
Why does the fighter get beter defense? Because he gets nothing else.

I just feel like there is so much more combat design space if those things are loosened up a lot more.
Maybe my rogue wants to spec into a "Quick potion/first aid" Build.
Maybe my white mage never learned more than a basic cure spell or two, preferring to bash enemies skulls in before his comrades are overwhelmed.
Maybe my Fighter wants to be basic attacking a bit before unleashing the 'Big guns'.

Now, there's two easy counter arguments to that:

But then all classes will just play/feel the same, and But then characters become too powerful.

On the feel or play the same, I'm not saying give everybody a cure spell, fireball and high defense in the same way.

Maybe the rogue uses Potions better, his fireball is a molotov coctail, when he is standing as a tank he dodges and counterattacks.

Maybe the Mage wants to be the 'Combo class' usually reserved for rogues. Going Flaming daggers into Unblanacing earth into Ice spike with an arcane torrent finish.

On the too powerful ... Well, they've only gotten one action a turn, right? Yes, in the abstract, having more abilities is better, but they're still only using one a turn, right? Does it really matter that I can spread the healing skills around my team a bit? Or that who's the tank switches from turn to turn? Or even on the skill learning front. The fact my rogue spent a skill pick on 'Combat Medicine' instead of 'Backstab 9000' is a cost.

Because once you look at it, there's a couple of things a party needs.

A way to mitigate incoming damage (You know, Aggro and Tank stuff)
A way to to recover HP
A way to deal consistent Single target Damage
A way to deal consistent AoE damage
A way to burst Single target Damage
A way to Burst multitarget Damage
Offensive Buffs
Defensive Buffs
Debuffs
Removing ailments.

And you can find a way to implement those in every 'character fantasy'.

But then, what about the other side?
The mage gets the big booms because he has low HP.
Why? I mean, class balance wise, I get it, but why can't I have Big booms and Big HP? (And really ****ty magic defense)
I get good defense and high HP, so all my skills suck?
Why not let me decide? Just give me the points to spend and a 'suggested stat' or three, but if I want to make that cleric with nearly no MP and a big heathen crushing mace, let me.

Now, some might be thinking, but why don't you just play a Fighter instead of some weird 'Shield and attention drawing spells' mage? Why not pick Mage over fighter if you want to be the boom-stick?

Because that's maybe not my character fantasy. I might want to do the big nukes, but with my sword, not by casting Ultima. I want to be wielding a staff and robe while I laugh at my enemies as they try to claw their way through a barrier. Or maybe I want to be (Movie version) Gandalf, laying down fools with my staff, rallying the troops, and only casting the occasional spell.

TL,DR: Why are the character fantasies (Brave knight, robe dressed wizard) always linked to mechanical identities (Tank, Healer, Single target or AoE DPS)?

 

[gstv87]

TL,DR: Why are the character fantasies (Brave knight, robe dressed wizard) always linked to mechanical identities (Tank, Healer, Single target or AoE DPS)?

because anyone can make *classes*, but very few people can *write* *characters*

 

[Andar]

Why are the character fantasies (Brave knight, robe dressed wizard) always linked to mechanical identities (Tank, Healer, Single target or AoE DPS)?

two reasons:

1) Because game developers are lazy, and balancing is one hell of a lot of work.

There have been some tries to get other mechanics to work, but most have failed due to the work needed to balance everything. Balancing is much easier if you have a set of restrictions as a starting point to get everything done. Finding a new party distribution that works would probably require a few yyears of playtesting and balancing before the game would be interesting and challenging to a lot of players.



2) Because players are lazy and the "known roles" require no extra learning.

A lot of people want to play on directly - they have no interest in going through dozens of pages of manual before knowing how to play a game/character.
Telling them "this figure follows this known strategy and has these know weeknesses" allows them to play and win directly.

It's the same reason why every game has enemies like slime, bat, orc and sceleton instead of inventing new enemies like grmblds and wartenbok...

 

[Tiamat-86]

i dont agree with saying the rouge has no combat ability and the healer is only a healer.
sure alot of the time "rouge" is just "thief" which is just a speed based support and ya they tend to have very little combat ability,
but "rouge" can also refer to archer, assassin, swashbuckler and fencer.
when you combine all of those into 1 class you can get a badass jack of "most" trades.

thief+assassin = master of multi hits, thief+swashbuckler = master of utility skills,
thief+archer+fencer = master of stat debuffs, archer+assassin = master of status ailments, archer+fencer = master of self buffs, assassin+fencer = master of crits
swashbuckler+fencer = frontline tank contender
then when you add items into the mix they can also do healing and element damage making it an actual jack of "all" trades

as for healer: "priests" tend to be the worst in games, light armor, weak attack magic, weak melee,
but their support magic is unrivaled.
"white mages" still the same crap armor, slightly better melee but also tend to have much better attack magic.
"clerics" are usually medium armor with decent melee and attack magic but there magic is often weaker then white mages.
then theres the "paladins" which are usually low MP front line healers but tend to lose alot of other support abilities and the healing in only enough for 1-2 characters not a whole party.

theres also an argument for fighters. (warrior, berserker, samurai, lancer, dark knight)

i guess my main point is that there's a difference between having a class and having archetypes.

ps: D&D im totaly chaotic/neutral rouge/warlock (arcane trickster if its a no multiclass game) love my stealth and versatility. and ill leave your ass to die if turning back is a suicide attempt waiting to happen.

i hate when i see "rouge" but it only has the skillset for "thief"

 

[Cythera]

Essentially, what Andar said.
Balancing is a LOT of work. You can never expect players to play optimally, nor can you expect them to make the worst choices possible. If you balance for optimal play, your game DEMANDS optimal play from players to progress - and people don't like that.
If you balance for worst choices, then your game becomes an utter cakewalk for those making optimal plays - or, heck, even those making mediocre plays.
Now, throw in the fact that players can change characters to act however they want in combat. It is...hard. Trust me. This is exactly what I do in my game. All characters are capable of fulfilling any role you want them to. Want your healer to do damage? Go right ahead; he's got the highest damage potential in the game - barring some bosses. Want your rogue to be a support character? Great idea; her wicked high agility enables you to get buffs before the enemy even acts. What about your bulkiest character, aka the tank? Don't worry; build him for magical attacks and he can absolutely cripple enemies.
There's no other way to tell you this, but balancing that is hard. Very hard. I have to consider not just optimal vs worst playstyles, but also possible team configurations players can use. Once you add that in, you have, oh, about, a million possibilities? Players will always do weird things. And the dev must account for them, must balance for them. Must provide a difficulty level on par with the rest of the game, but must ensure it is beatable. Don't want to cause softlocks and force players to respec if they don't play your way, after all.

Secondly, yeah, some players can be lazy. They may not want to invent a new team meta; they may want to play with a team already established. The tank-healer-DPS trio is, uh, pretty dang established in the RPG genre if you ask me. Anyone who has ever played an RPG knows what to do with that setup. And anyone new to the genre, well, it's a very user-friendly setup to learn.
Using the established classes is user-friendly, and unlike to confuse anyone away from the combat system, ever new players.
As a friend of mine always used to say, "cliché is cliché for a reason." And she was right; things only become cliché because they're used so often. Why are they used so often? Because they work.

I love having class freedom, being able to customize characters to fulfill whatever role I want. However. I can certainly understand why devs would want to steer clear of this. Both for ease on them in balancing and developing [gotta make all those skill names, descriptions, and animations] and for user-friendliness.
I have a lot more to discuss regarding class tropes vs customization and such, but, uh, I've got class in a few minutes sooooo.... I'll end my lil essay here.

 

[Dobberman]

The model "DPS/Tank/Healer" define the role of the character, not the class. If you make a rogue who can heal and do a little damage, he's not a DPS, he's assuming the "healer" role. If you make a paladin who can absorb much damage and lay heal on allies, but he's only healing and trying alone to make the party alive, he's not in the Tank role, he's in the healer role.

In a way, that's how Henry Ford thought about the industry. Every man has a role and need to specialize in it for the indsutry to grow.

Btw, if you think in "DPS/Tank/Healer" is the only model, you're talking about only one side of the battle mechanism: the damage.​

• Tank absorbs damage.​
• Healer undoes damge.​
• DPS does the damage.​

It's only the basic mathematic of the battle. You can add damage, subtract damage and split damage. But, that think is like ancient tactics of war. Who got more soldiers win the battle.

There's a thing called "control".

The control role isn't playing math, it's the one who change de rule. He makes the healer unable to heal (with silence). He made the tank weak (debuffing). He made the DPS unable to attack (stun). Sometimes a silence can do more damage than a big weapon.

Besides of mathematic damage, there's action economy, there's resource of characters, and many more tools to made a battle more attractive. If you don't use of this tools, you're making a math fight, when who's got more number win the battle.

Before a battle, the game ask for the player what tools he want to bring for a battle. If all tools are same (all character can tank; heal; dps; and control effectively), it's a false choice, because all options are the same just with a diferrente flavor name.

There's nothing wrong about do a rogue with fistaid especiality who can heal or a cleric who can do a good melee damage. But if you only bring more different names flavor to you game, in the end, you will have just the sames tools.

Think in a battle like a Trading Card Game. What card you put in your deck? You adding only damage cards with differents name? If so, a deck with damage denying and eliminating your creatures abilities can stop you from playing and beat it even with weaker creatures.

Why is everyone concerned only with numbers? Perhaps because they don't understand the full extent of a battle system.

That's what i think.​

 

[Milennin]

Why does the boss deal that much damage? So the Healer has something to do.

Because it's a boss and it's supposed to be threatening. And this isn't even an RPG exclusive staple, WTH?

Why is the mage's defense crap? Because he's wearing robes.

And the problem exactly here is...?

Why are his HP so low ? Because he's frail.

Because they don't get involved in physical combat a lot. Their stats reflect that.

Why do his attacks use MP, and the fighter's don't? Uh, because spell slots?

What RPG are you playing where the fighters get to attack for free while the healer doesn't? Because out of all the RPG's I've played, I don't recall ever seeing this.

Why does the rogue have nothing to do in combat? Because he has out of combat utility.

Again, what RPG are you playing where a Rogue has nothing to do in combat. Sounds like a simple adjustment to his skillset would do the trick if that were ever the case.

Why are we still using these mechanics combined with these ... Archetypes?

Because they follow a solid foundation. Don't fix what ain't broke and all that.

Why do they have to link to the mechanics in such a ... predictable way?

Predictable isn't the word you're looking for. Realistic would be more like it. Yes, your defences are gonna be crap if you wear nothing but robes. Yes, your HP is gonna be low if you don't get involved in physical combat a lot. These things make sense.

If I choose to be the mage as a 'character fantasy' but I want to play a tank as mechanical identity?

Your whole post gets single-handedly nuked from orbit by RPG Maker's existence, which lets you make the game you want. You want a healer eating up all the hits? Go make one. You want a Rogue that blows up the enemies? Go make one. You want a fighter that picks flowers in the backline? Go make one. Nobody is stopping you from doing just that.

TL,DR: Why are the character fantasies (Brave knight, robe dressed wizard) always linked to mechanical identities (Tank, Healer, Single target or AoE DPS)?

Because they're using the standard conventions as their foundation. People associate classic designs with classic mechanics. You see the big bulky knight, people expect them to take hits and hold the frontlines. You see the robed wizard, people expect them to cast big spells and die easily if they get attacked. You see the cute frail girl in the back, people expect her to heal the party.

 

[M.I.A.]

In my current project, I've tied "classes" to characters.. and their "class" is based off of their skills and personalities.. with that said, I've also combined multiple mini-roles into each character. Mostly conflicting roles. So mechanically, the player has to choose wisely in battle. Will this character (Tank/Healer) use an attack? Heal an injured teammate? Set up a barrier? Or is taunting going to be most effective?

How about this other character (DPS/Items)? Will they also attack? Use a weaker AOE? Use a stronger ST? Replenish a teammates MP? Boost their own stats?

I hear what you're saying, but I don't feel like it's the Archetype or the Class that is the issue. It's that developers maybe aren't getting very creative straying away from the tropes.

In my last project, the main Tank and DPS was a Mage. Super squishy at the start of battle.. but after stacking buffs and setting up DoT's, they became the beast of the party. Not great in average map battles.. but great against mini-bosses and bosses.

Hope you find this helpful!
-MIA

 

[ATT_Turan]

Lately I've been wondering, why do nearly all class based games use these?

Your whole post reads like you need to play more games I don't know whether you're limiting yourself to something specific, or just indie games made by Joe Schmoe, but I'm going to say the majority of RPG video games I've played do not adhere to the structure you describe.

From the earliest Final Fantasy games that let you customize your jobs and skills, to games based on the Dungeons and Dragons ruleset (which you blame for this class structure) which allow you to multiclass, to Dragon Age where you have a wide variety of specializations to choose from...I'm frankly having a hard time thinking of any single-player game I've played that stuck so closely to the system in your post.

I just noticed the part where you said:

Now, I'm going to limit my discussion to the typical party based turn based games. (Older final fantasies and the lot.)

I don't know exactly what "the lot" entails, but if you're going solely off of games that are some 30 years old and asking "why does every game do this?"...well, they don't. Stuff changed in those 30 years. Heck, it's only been 29 years since Final Fantasy V with the job and sub-job system which flies in the face of your post.

 

[Tai_MT]

I guess I don't understand this post. I think I need some clarity.

I really haven't played any RPG in the last 20+ years that adhered to any of these tropes except MAYBE MMO's.

D&D even has multi-classing to allow you to be whatever mixture you want. I think that's been around since second edition or something? I don't know, I only started with fourth. Even Final Fantasy 2 allowed you to be whatever you wanted to be, if you were smart about the stat increase system. Well, mostly.

More often than not, what I see is "This is the Class you play, it can be played in a variety of ways, pick how you want it to play" and that's what we work with. I've played a number of Rogues who didn't do anything remotely sneaky in games and just stabbed people really good while also casting Fireball. I've played a number of White Mages in games who largely exist to specifically tank damage and absorb aggro because... it's funny. I've played Paladins who don't heal or Turn Undead. I've played Warriors who use Bows and Enchanted Arrows rather than whack enemies with swords.

Heck, in Final Fantasy 14, I'm playing a White Mage who basically dipped out of "The DPS" game in favor of casting speed and Healing. That is... my stats are spec'd specifically so that my Cure 1 heals you the same amount as everyone else's Cure 2 does. My stats are spec'd specifically so that if I cast "Regen" on you, it heals you for 6 ticks of what my Cure 1 does. My stats are spec'd so that I can Tank just by virtue of how fast I can heal myself rather than how much damage I can take. I simply don't DPS because it's boring as a Healer. It's also, frankly, unnecessary. If your "Healer" class has to DPS in Final Fantasy 14, it's because your DPS classes with you aren't doing their job.

But, that's neither here nor there. I always play "out of the norm" for my classes. Mostly because I like finding fun little synergies. Or, I like to "be the best at something niche". Most people play games this way. Few people ever play a "Pure" anything. Few games even force you to play a "Pure" anything as a result of players not really enjoying it that much.

Instead, an "archetype" is created and you work within that archetype to create something you want to play. I mean... some of those Archetypes exist because of people like you.

"I want to be a White Mage who whacks people with Swords and tanks!"

Yeah, that's why Paladins exist.

"I want to be a Thief who casts magic at people".

Yeah, that's where you get "Arcane Tricksters" from.

I mean, this post is basically, "Why do default Archetypes exist? I want to use other Default Archetypes instead!".

I mean...

We have Red Mages, Blue Mages, Magic Knights, Monks, Ninja, Beast Masters, etcetera.

All you're really doing is just describing other Archetypes instead.

If I choose to be the mage as a 'character fantasy' but I want to play a tank as mechanical identity?

Typically called "Magic Knight". Sometimes "Sorcerer" depending on the setting. Final Fantasy itself alternates between calling them "Red Mages" and "Magic Knights", but they were also "Fencer's" at one point too. D&D sometimes calls them "Bards", depending on the build.

What If I want to be the Rogue that heals?

Typically this is called an Alchemist. Rikku in Final Fantasy X was one...

Why can't my fighter be the one throwing around the big nukes?

Still called a Magic Knight.

Why shouldn't my white mage be slicing and dicing sometimes, Vampire hunter style?

This is usually called "A Paladin". But, if they uses Maces instead of Swords, then they're usually called "Clerics"... So... that's a thing.

Class balance? I mean, I got a whole lot to say about that, and I think ... Classes as a package traditionally require a whole lot of things to be 'Bundled together'.

Not really. There's just a class for everything you think should be unique. Like... it already exists. It's just called a different archetype.

Why is the wizard frail? Because his spells deal more damage.

Usually for Balance reasons. But, I mean... you can always make a Magic Knight...

Why can't the cleric attack? Because he can heal.

The Cleric can and usually does. Turn Undead, Smite, whacking with maces or flails or maybe even swords... He can heal too, but he's primarily around for killing undead stuff.

Why does the fighter get better defense? Because he gets nothing else.

Usually because he's on the front lines in CQC. I mean... you wouldn't make much of a fighter if your Defense was basically 0 and you run headlong into combat. They call that "The Leeroy Jenkins". If such a character is really good at dodging, however, they're usually either referred to as "Rogues" or "Berserkers". So... you know.... different Archetype.

I just feel like there is so much more combat design space if those things are loosened up a lot more.

Combat design space only opens up if you stop relying on stats. Really, that's it. If combat relies on gimmicks and skills instead of stats, then it opens up. Otherwise, it's always a "numbers game". To that end, most classes fall into their respective roles and traits in order to balance those numbers.

Combat isn't interesting because you can customize a character to be whatever you want (because games that allow this typically run on stats... and are easily broken as a result by players who figure out how to break it early and often).

Combat is interesting because of what the enemies can do to you and what you can do to the enemies. Throwing nukes isn't interesting. A rogue that Heals with potions isn't interesting. An enemy that hits you for as much damage as the enemies you've killed though? THAT'S interesting. An enemy that does more damage to you based upon how much of a Healing skill you have? THAT'S interesting. An enemy that can put everyone to sleep and then runs away? INTERESTING. A character that can draw all the aggro to them and then cast Counter Attack? INTERESTING.

Combat is only interesting based on what you can do in it. Doing more damage or healing your damage isn't that interesting. It's "standard fare".

Maybe my rogue wants to spec into a "Quick potion/first aid" Build.

Usually called "Alchemist" or "Medic". Sometimes these are also just "Rangers" as well.

Maybe my white mage never learned more than a basic cure spell or two, preferring to bash enemies skulls in before his comrades are overwhelmed.

That's a Cleric.

Maybe my Fighter wants to be basic attacking a bit before unleashing the 'Big guns'.

Not sure if you mean martially or magically here. Martially would probably just mean he's a Knight. Or, maybe a Martial Artist of some kind. Magically would probably mean he's just a "Magic Knight".
---

Seriously, I need more clarification. I'm not sure what the point of this post is except to say, "labels bad, I want to do things that aren't with labels!" and then proceed to describe other things that have labels.

It's... confusing.

I mean... what is it you're looking for?

 

[Tiamat-86]

Why does the fighter get better defense? Because he gets nothing else.

Usually because he's on the front lines in CQC. I mean... you wouldn't make much of a fighter if your Defense was basically 0 and you run headlong into combat.

meanwhile in diablo 3, glass cannon whirlrend barbarian sneezes "someone must be talking about me"

the whole thread is reminding me why way back when played FF11(aht urgan expansion period) i never played red mage in parties. they wanted to force all RDMs to play the exact same way, back line healer/refresh hoe, meanwhile i wanted to utilize all of RDMs talents, frontline enchanted melee dps/support.
square designed ninja to be a dualwield puller/dps with high attack speed. players completely ignored how it was designed and geared NIN in pure evasion and turnd it into a blink tank.

 

[ATT_Turan]

If I choose to be the mage as a 'character fantasy' but I want to play a tank as mechanical identity?

...D&D sometimes calls them "Bards", depending on the build.

I think you'd have a pretty hard time getting a bard to tank But your point is absolutely correct, that there are classes with more hit points/armor proficiency that still cast arcane spells.

 

[Tiamat-86]

1 of the bard archtypes could wear better weapons and armor. and they can use the spells shield and counterspell. can make decent tank. really D&D bards could replicate ANY other class, you just had to build them up that way. D&D bards and druids are the jack of all trades classes that could choose to master 1 or 2 trades instead.
D&D has alot of class flexibility. swashbuckler rouges can tank with the best of them.
i prefer cleric/warlock that plays exactly like a PLD with more spells over making a PLD.

these concepts can be translated into RM games. 1 of my proof of concept games had equip skills + allow skill types, so you had your current class's action skills + equiped select few action skills learned from other classes and passive skills had to be equipped too. so could make a mage with equipped mage passives and healer actions creating a sage class or could equip tank passives and melee actions to create a dark knight

 

[ATT_Turan]

Well, I don't acknowledge anything past 3.5 edition, so perhaps you can make a more solid bard tank in modern books

 

[Tiamat-86]

4th edition was bad. 5th edition was good

 

[ATT_Turan]

5th edition was good

It simplified so much of the combat rules that it no longer filled the niche that D&D filled for me. I have a ton of games with streamlined combat rules, I don't need to buy another.
D&D is for when I want a fantasy RPG with tactical minis combat (which, of course, is where the game came from).

 

[Tai_MT]

It simplified so much of the combat rules that it no longer filled the niche that D&D filled for me. I have a ton of games with streamlined combat rules, I don't need to buy another.
D&D is for when I want a fantasy RPG with tactical minis combat (which, of course, is where the game came from).

I never got into the "mini's combat" of D&D. Probably why I hated 4th Edition so much. 5th Edition, however, allows you to abstract absolutely everything out and the only portion you REALLY need is "distances". Hard rules are all well and good, but when your party asks to do something that isn't in the rulebook... I like it better that it's abstracted out.

"Hey, if I cast this thunderbolt spell thing that pushes enemies away, but I'm above them, does that knock them prone?" and I just go, "Yeah, that makes sense to me. If they fail their save and you're above 'em, it knocks 'em prone." No rule states that, nor does the skill itself.

D&D For me has always been about the "abstraction". I'm sure Mini's play is great and all, but it is sort of "too restrictive" for me.

I mean, I'm the sort that if my player is like, "Hey, I want to put like this little shield thing attached to my bracers so I can block", I go, "Yeah, okay, should probably count as a shield, I'll give you the +2 for it, as long as it's sufficiently large and you use it in combat." Yeah, I don't let my players have "stat sticks". You get the bonuses only if you're using the equipment.

In any case, I've seen Bards played a bunch of different ways. It's sort of weird how versatile they can be. The one I had created had a very high Reflex or whatever it's called and so very few things would ever hit him. But, he was also a "frontline fighter" and fought next to the Half-Orc Barbarian. It was not my intent to be "tanky", but there I was. I could take like two hits and that was it (My HP was garbage), so once I took a hit, I'd fall back and begin casting spells and singing songs... but otherwise, I was often helping to corral multiple enemies at once.

But, I mean, that's D&D. You can play anything pretty much any way you want with a good enough story and proper stat distribution. Sure, some classes are better at doing some jobs than others... But, that's where the roleplaying and such comes in. Or, your initial rolls. Nothing says you have to dump your 18 into Int as a Wizard. Feel free to dump it into Strength. Sure, you might not be proficient with a sword and so you take a penalty... but who cares when you get to rock a +4 to every roll with your sword anyway? Just turns it into a +3. Take a feat later that gives you proficiency with the sword, so you stop getting the negative. Put all your spells onto scrolls instead and then wear platemail and cast via scroll. You can do that if you want, too.

Other games tend to stick with the archetypes and let you work within them to create whatever you want.

 

[freakytapir]

I mean... what is it you're looking for?

Just poking the anthill, I guess. Starting some discussion

And one clarification, when I said

"Fighter that casts the big nuke" I didn't mean some Magic knight that casts Ultima or Holy. I meant A non-magical fighter that uses his Sword to achieve the same effect.

 

[ATT_Turan]

That clarification doesn't really change anything about the replies you've gotten. Since the early Final Fantasy titles with Mystic Knight, many games have had warrior classes that cast enchantments onto their weapons.

Although I'm not sure what a "non-magical" fighter that achieves the same effect as "a big nuke" exactly means, but there are tons of games that have non-magical combat techniques for dramatic effect (that's what the RPG Maker built-in TP system is for emulating).

 

[Tai_MT]

Not sure I know how "a big nuke" exists with a sword and not using magic. I guess he just hits really really really super hard?

Cyan from Final Fantasy 6 comes to mind with his "Sword Arts", but he's just a Knight using Techniques.

So... you want a Knight to just be a more powerful Knight? I guess?