The mix of magical, pseudo magical, and non-magical classes

Crazy Jerome · Feb 29, 2012

What for you is the optimum mix of classes, roughly divided up as follows:

Not magical in any way (examples Fighter, Rogue)
Definitely magical (examples Wizard, Cleric)
Partially magical or pseudo magical (examples Paladin, Monk)

Also, does your answer change based on the nature and frequency of multiclassing? (Assume for the sake of these questions we are only considering full classes, not "prestige" or other such variants.)

I'm not sure what my answer is. Reason I'm asking is that is seems to me there is this tension with classes between providing variety for what people want to do versus not dividing up niches too much.

If you have 8 classes, perhaps Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger (with spells), and only two of them have no magic at all, then that's great for letting Fighters and Rogues have a wide range of stuff, but not so hot if you want a party that is not heavily magical. If nothing else, it means that even with a group of 4 players and half and half mix, the players that prefer magical characters get a wider range of choices. With multiclassing it gets even worse--you've got one non-magical option, fighter/rogue.

OTOH, say you drop spells from the Ranger, and replace the Bard with the Barbarian. Now you've got a closer to even mix, though multiclassing still favors "the character has some magic." But you run into the issue of parsing out a rather small set of non-magical abilities over a wider range.

Those are just examples to illustrate what I mean. Is there a way to finesse this issue, or is this inherent tension something that has to be threaded?

Hassassin · Feb 29, 2012

I'd call the third group supernatural classes.

Kits/archetypes are an easy way to make a class be either supernatural or non-magical, by swapping class features.

Crazy Jerome · Feb 29, 2012

Hassassin said:
I'd call the third group supernatural classes.

I meant it to include supernatural but be wider than that. Any hybrid class with otherwise straight arcane or divine spells would qualify, but also monk supernatural abilties, partial psionics, etc. I realize the cleric is actually already a hybrid, and thus the categories are a bit arbitrary, but you've got to draw the boundaries somewhere.

Though I guess that raises the question of whether the classes with supernatural abiltiies but no direct spells are more acceptable in the mix than simply a hybrid spell caster. So maybe four groups makes more sense. I thought about doing a poll, but I've got to get some answers before I'd know what to put in the poll. :lol:

Eldritch_Lord · Feb 29, 2012

Ideally, for me, you'd have the four archetypal classes to start with, which I define as the "nonmagical combat guy" (fighter), the "nonmagical utility guy" (rogue), the "magical combat guy" (cleric), and the "magical utility guy" (wizard). Yes, the cleric and wizard both do both combat and utility, and the blaster wizard is iconic, but that stems primarily from casters being able to do everything, and the most iconic parts of each class fit those distinctions (what separates D&D clerics from "generic fantasy priests" are in-combat healing, turning undead, smiting evil things, etc. first and heroes' feast and the like second; what separates D&D wizards from "generic fantasy mages" are scrying, divinations, rope trick, invisibility, etc. first and fireball a very very close second).

Given those four, you then take the 6 pairwise permutations for your other classes:
Arcane + Skill = Bard (obviously)
Arcane + Combat = Ranger (the 1e ranger could use both arcane and divine magic, and making the ranger a gish-y class would work nicely to diversify him past "the nature guy who hates certain creatures")
Arcane + Divine = Druid (druids have plenty of overlap of the arcane and divine niches, with the healing/warding/weather stuff of clerics and the summoning/shapechanging/blasting of wizards)
Skill + Combat = Barbarian (give the 5e barbarian more of a nature/totemic focus than he has now so he isn't just "the angry fighter")
Skill + Divine = Monk (making the monk more explicitly divine would help with its lack of focus)
Combat + Divine = Paladin (obviously)

That mix gives you 3 purely magical classes, 3 purely nonmagical classes, and 4 mixed magical/nonmagical classes. Hopefully there would be enough options for each combination class that they could focus more on one "side" or the other, so if you wanted a party with no overlapping classes you could have a party of a wizard, a cleric, a druid, and a bard/ranger/monk/paladin focusing on the more magical abilities for an "all magic" party or a party of a fighter, a rogue, a barbarian, and a bard/ranger/monk/paladin focusing on the less magical abilities for a "no magic" party, and of course if the four mixes go for an even split you could have a party of a bard, a ranger, a monk, and a paladin that's nicely balanced all around without running into the 5th-wheel problem that AD&D/3e bards and monks run into sometimes.

Ahnehnois · Feb 29, 2012

I'd definitely like the nonmagic classic to be explored and detailed much more than they have been.

Minigiant · Feb 29, 2012

I'd use 4 groups

Nonmagical-Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Warlord

Nonmagical who have magical option- Ranger, Assassin, Monk

Partially magic/Supernatural- Paladin, Warlock, Bard

Magical- Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer

This way a party of 4 can be 50/50 mundane and magic easy but get more magically or natural with a few tweaks.

steeldragons · Feb 29, 2012

Hmmm. For the kind of breakdown you propose, I think I'd opt/wish for something along these lines...

Non-Magical:
Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Warlord,
Rogue, Assassin, Monk

Partial/Pseudo-Magical (i.e. class abilities and "powers" are not necessarily derived from "spell use"):
Paladin ("divine powers" but preferably with no spell use at all!)
Bard, Druid and Warlock (have spells, obviously, but not the crux of their classes abilities or diverse other abilities which are not "spell" dependent)
(Shaman, if applicable)

Full on Spell-Using Magical:
Wizard/Mage/MU, Cleric, Sorcerer (Witch, if applicable)

Hassassin · Mar 1, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
I meant it to include supernatural but be wider than that.

Ok, maybe partially, pseudo- or semi-magical is better.

Anyway, my point was that 3e core classes are 4 magical (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard), 4 semi-magical (bard, monk, paladin, ranger), and 3 non-magical (barbarian, fighter, rogue). However, add a kit for a non-magical ranger and they are in three-way balance. You can count classes twice if there are two options.

Mokona · Mar 1, 2012

I have played more than my fair share of "no magic" to low-magic games. Therefore, I desire enough purely martial classes to fill four functions: light infantry (high mobility, ability to reach strategic targets, and fast attacks), heavy infantry (high attack and defense), artillery (glass cannon wizards), and support (leadership, &c). Of the four, support is semi-optional.

Gargoyle · Mar 1, 2012

As long as the archetypes represented by the classes all look cool, I'm ok with any proportion, and generally let players play what they like. I have been tempted to run a non-magical campaign, or an all magical campaign, but I don't play enough to experiment with such things.