I'm curious,how many like medieval fantasy RP?

[Arnold Solomon]

Archer-Mage? or "Elf" as they're normally referred to.

I would have no idea,but I just wish to have a list and what they can or could be and I wish to just have the bloody bugger in my bookmarks so on sites like this,I can just bring up the page and BOOM,choose a role

 

[Holmishire]

I mean as in like,what would an archer that uses magical fire arrows and assassin techniques be called?

Something like dat.Would there be a name for it?

A fire elementalist with a preference for the bow. Potentially a fire-focused Arcane Archer, or if you like making up words, a pyrotoxodolophonite, as best I can speculate. Other potential made up classes could be a pyrarche assassin or a flame-shot sniper. Imagination is your strongest tool, and often a description will get you where you need to go.

Such extremely specific classes are not typically expanded upon, but rather developed in fantasy setting through a variety of classes via a process known as "multiclassing".

Even then, there are no comprehensive lists for potential base classes. This may help, being a list of a little over a thousand D&D classes. This is also pretty useful for looking up actual medieval professions, though it is mostly limited to the title and few actually have descriptions.

 

[Disgruntled Goat]

For a really simplistic take, I'd just go with "archer" for the class, and then specify that your character uses fire-imbued arrows. If you can explain what your character does, and why, then you don't need to have the *exact* class name spot on. It's close enough. I also heartily endorse the idea of just making up your own class name if it works. "Rain of Fire Archer" would be my preference, since it sums up the character's class, but also sounds kind of cool at the same time.

Holmishire's link to the D&D class list is a good start, though.

 

[idlehands]

I would have no idea,but I just wish to have a list and what they can or could be and I wish to just have the bloody bugger in my bookmarks so on sites like this,I can just bring up the page and BOOM,choose a role

Don't listen to me, I was just being cheeky. Holmi's answer is much better.

 

[Arnold Solomon]

Ember Shooter?Would that be something?,remember,I ish 14.

 

[Disgruntled Goat]

Don't listen to me

That's good advice for everyone. (;

Ember Shooter?Would that be something?,remember,I ish 14.

"Ember Shooter" works, but it doesn't make it clear that your character is an archer. You could be playing a mage that can shoot embers from their bare hands. Maybe "Ember Archer", or "Ember Bowman"? If it isn't something already, then you just have to go out there and MAKE it something.

 

[Arnold Solomon]

np,

Ember Shooter?Would that be something?,remember,I ish 14.

nvm,just remembered "imagination!!!!" *spongebob rainbow thing*

 

[Arnold Solomon]

Hm,I am so glad people help others on this site...unlike some other websites I went to........

 

[Arnold Solomon]

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/64/56/ff/6456ff8b716c3129f3f84fc352bdd612.jpg



This is what I mean by like an Assassinating Pyro-Archer.Because,why not?

 

[Dervish]

I mean as in like,what would an archer that uses magical fire arrows and assassin techniques be called?

Something like dat.Would there be a name for it?

btw,love the avatar

He would be called an Asshole.

I think you can call it whichever you like, as long as you explain what the class is and it's cool with the GM. If you are the GM, then everyone else bows down to you like the animals in the Lion King, you magnificent Simba you.

If he's actually enchanting said fire arrows and not just buying them from Ye Olde Costco in bulk, I'd call it something like an Arcane Assassin.

 

[Arnold Solomon]

He would be called an Asshole.

I think you can call it whichever you like, as long as you explain what the class is and it's cool with the GM. If you are the GM, then everyone else bows down to you like the animals in the Lion King, you magnificent Simba you.

If he's actually enchanting said fire arrows and not just buying them from Ye Olde Costco in bulk, I'd call it something like an Arcane Assassin.

Thank you so much!

 

[Arnold Solomon]

Huh....anybody up for some rp?Oh and,is it normal to get an alert 15 minutes after something is posted?

 

[Jorick]

Part of the trouble with trying to make a definitive list of class names is that the vary so widely from setting to setting. Different settings will use different words to describe the same thing, and then other settings will say they're different things entirely.

A fine example of this was brought up by Disgruntled Goat. What's the difference between a fighter and a warrior? Some settings say nothing, they're synonymous. Some will make distinctions based on weapon or armor types used. Some will make distinctions based on skills and tactics. Some will say neither of those exist and it's a split between brawlers and knights.

The closest thing you can try to get to a definitive class list is to look at the very top level archetypes. You've got fighters (basically everything from assassins to paladins, any kind of melee combatant), archers (ranged, non-magic fighters), and mages (anyone who uses magic). All the various special names are a matter of naming specializations within those classes, or particular kinds of multi-classing between them. Trying to pin all those names down is just not worth the effort.

 

[LadyBethesda]

Sounds like fun

 

[Windsong]

Doesn't it seem kinda counter-intuitive to use flaming arrows while trying to remain stealthy? An exploding arrow tip I can understand, maybe one that catches fire, oil and flint, maybe? But flaming arrow assassin? Psh. Just give them a longbow or something. And FFS don't make them wimpy looking, bow's take plenty of (if not more) strength to draw than to swing a sword. Not accounting aim.

Also, everyone likes Medieval Fantasy because it's SO BIG in terms of what you can do with it. It's a basic setting, castles, forests, villages, etc, but you can add or take away so much!

 

[Brovo]

Doesn't it seem kinda counter-intuitive to use flaming arrows while trying to remain stealthy? An exploding arrow tip I can understand, maybe one that catches fire, oil and flint, maybe? But flaming arrow assassin? Psh. Just give them a longbow or something. And FFS don't make them wimpy looking, bow's take plenty of (if not more) strength to draw than to swing a sword. Not accounting aim.

Also, everyone likes Medieval Fantasy because it's SO BIG in terms of what you can do with it. It's a basic setting, castles, forests, villages, etc, but you can add or take away so much!

Also because Tolkien and historical fantasy, wider prospective audiences (including most notable women), et cetera et cetera.

 

[Disgruntled Goat]

The closest thing you can try to get to a definitive class list is to look at the very top level archetypes. You've got fighters (basically everything from assassins to paladins, any kind of melee combatant), archers (ranged, non-magic fighters), and mages (anyone who uses magic). All the various special names are a matter of naming specializations within those classes, or particular kinds of multi-classing between them. Trying to pin all those names down is just not worth the effort.

Whilst your three categories are correct, you're only really covering the combat types. If we're talking about a real medieval fantasy roleplay, and not just a combat-orientated roleplay, then you'll have all sorts of classes/professions that aren't trained combatants. Then you could have some sort of a diplomat, or maybe a non-magically-powered priest that is there purely because this is a "holy mission" or whatever. You could have some kind of a non-D&D monk, who isn't a bare foot, bare-fisted combat machine, but rather a religious man that has dedicated himself to knowledge, who comes with the group to provide lore on the surrounding areas.

I even want to argue that a "thief" should be an archetype of its own, because whilst they may use daggers, bows or both, their real use to the party is not in the combat ability, but in their lock-picking and trap-detecting. It's a big ol' mess, for sure.

 

[Holmishire]

I'm used to the warrior/rogue/mage triumvirate, sometimes with cleric being separate of mage or ranger separate of rogue.

But really, there are so many potential classification systems that could be adopted.

 

[Jorick]

Whilst your three categories are correct, you're only really covering the combat types. If we're talking about a real medieval fantasy roleplay, and not just a combat-orientated roleplay, then you'll have all sorts of classes/professions that aren't trained combatants. Then you could have some sort of a diplomat, or maybe a non-magically-powered priest that is there purely because this is a "holy mission" or whatever. You could have some kind of a non-D&D monk, who isn't a bare foot, bare-fisted combat machine, but rather a religious man that has dedicated himself to knowledge, who comes with the group to provide lore on the surrounding areas.

I even want to argue that a "thief" should be an archetype of its own, because whilst they may use daggers, bows or both, their real use to the party is not in the combat ability, but in their lock-picking and trap-detecting. It's a big ol' mess, for sure.

Combat types are the core of classes in most things where they come up. In the vast majority of fantasy things with classes you're just not going to have a non-combat class option. From what I've seen, especially where it concerns roleplays, if non-combat is a viable option then you almost never have classes. I was boiling it down to the simplest configuration possible, so disregarding the outliers where classes are synonymous with profession rather than being about your combat type made the most sense.

I wouldn't say thief deserves its own archetype when trying to keep it as simple as possible. They're just fighters who specialize in sneaky methods. You could argue based on that same sort of logic that clerics deserve their own archetype because their main utility is in healing and reviving and purifying instead of in fighting. Or you could say rangers are different than archers because of their utility things being more important than their fighting. So on and so forth until you're back to trying to list every possible combination of skills with a different label, simplicity out the window.

If anything, to keep it still as simple as possible to cover all the bases, then a fourth archetype of 'non-combat' (or 'utility' maybe) would be the best option. Thieves would be fighter/non-combat combos, clerics would be mage/non-combat, and rangers would be archer/non-combat. An archer who uses magic fire arrows and assassin skills would be a fighter/archer/mage combo, and if they also have some other utility stuff going on then they'd be all four rolled up into one. It's an elegant yet simple system that includes everything ever, no need to remember that this particular set of skills is referred to as, for example, an Inferno-Archersassin.

 

[Cpt Toellner]

All you travelers with your combat styles...I could never live a life like that.