This is kind of dumb, and is going to have to carry my soapbox tag, but it bothers me and i have to say something, somewhere i can pretend is reaching the world…

There’s a small portion of the D&D community that likes to stat up fictional characters, and i say that’s fine. It’s a creative exercise and i like to exercise my creativity. So I’m generally for it.

But there’s something we need to get straight: 99% of all characters appearing in fiction are not your weird hybrid or niche character classes. You might not think of the barbarian, bard, druid, monk, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, or warlock as weird, niche characters… But that’s because you lack either a discerning eye or an education in fiction and the process of creating fiction.

To start, barbarians and monks are like, specialized fighters. Paladins are like hybrid cleric fighters. Druids are totally specialist clerics. Sorcerers and warlocks are specialist wizards. Bards are weird hybrid fighter rogue wizards. Rangers are rogue fighter hybrids with a weird spellcasting schtick.

Television writing especially is super basic when it comes to these character types. You never see rangers on TV. Like 9 times out of 10 when you think you’ve seen a ranger on TV, it’s really a rogue. Like that Netflix Castlevania show comes to mind.

So, the vampire dude is a fighter, straight up. The chick is a wizard, natch. Belmont is a rogue. He sticks to close quarters, uses small weapons like daggers and whips, and throws stuff, and generally resorts to using dirty tricks to escape battle ASAP.

Belmont’s personality and background totally support the rogue archetype too. He is first seen drinking and brawling in a pub. He’s a disenfranchised noble with a chip on his shoulder and a disdain for authority figures, especially the church for perhaps the only justified reason in the show (the church branded his family witches or something).

The thing about the ranger is that you have to have the range–nowadays it doesn’t matter if you get it from a bow, a crossbow, a rifle, or a shotgun–a ranger’s gotta range. Then there’s the while outdoorsman thing, plus the magic. I mean, Aragorn might be the only actual ranger in fiction … even Talion from Shadow of Mordor almost doesn’t count, and he’s CALLED a ranger.

The weird thing about rangers is that historical rangers protected the king’s forest from poachers. So there’s a lawful component? But D&D Rangers can cast healing spells because Aragorn was a king and kings can cast healing magic. Fighting with two weapons is really as peripheral thing that has nothing to do with being a ranger.

Rangers in Game of Thrones are way more like historical rangers, but in the D&D sense they’re a fraternity of fighters and rogues who patrol the wall. Not actually rangers because they don’t specialise in using bows and casting healing spells. I’m not going to let go of that either because casting spells is an idiotic part of the D&D ranger archetype.

Seriously part of this is just to defend my claim that the Netflix Castelvania Belmont is one of the better rogues I’ve seen on TV in a while and it annoys me to see people try to stat him as anything but.

Frankly before you run to any class, you should have to first PROVE they aren’t one of the four classic roles: fighter, wizard, thief, or priest.

Even in a martial arts movie where you swear there are dudes of the monk class–no way, man. Those dudes are just fighters and rogues and priests with high strength and dexterity who can’t afford weapons and armor. Because when they can afford weapons and armor, they use them.

If i had to say like, the main difference between eastern and western fantasy film, it would be that the “holy trinity” of fighter, mage, thief in the west is replaced by fighter, thief, priest in the east. When in doubt, a monk in a kung fu movie is probably a cleric who took a vow of poverty. He punches and kicks dudes because he doesn’t use weapons by choice. It’s called role-playing.