D&D (2024) 6e, how would you sort the classes/sub-classs?

Dukey said:

I would do it like the 2nd edition class and kit system structure as much as possible.
That structure was very solid I think as you didnt have to preplan your feats and skills levels ahead.
Based on this structure you can redesign the classes and kits for 6e and make use of the new 6e mechanics.

Paladin is a warrior class. Blackguard is a Paladin sub-class
Assassin is a rogue kit, Ninja is a rogue class.
Ranger is a warrior class. Rogue is a standard class.
Sorcerer is a wizard kit. Wizard is a standard class. Druid is a priest class. Some druids can be focused more on shapechanging than others (Druid kits)
Psionicist is a standard class. Telepathy is different than telekinesis. Soul weapons are spiritual and not psionic.
Knight and Samurai are both kits of the warrior class. They use different weapons, armor and have a different philosophy.
Bard is a rogue class.

Click to expand...

I don't get the reasoning. Why is sorcerer a wizard kit? why not a class?

MoonSong said:

I don't get the reasoning. Why is sorcerer a wizard kit? why not a class?

Click to expand...

Or why couldn't wizard and sorcerer both be kits of a broader mage class?

Same 2 track idea, but even more iconicly D&D.

Track 1: Lawful (long rest / continuous effects), Natrual (short rest), Chaoitc (at-will).
Track 2: Good (defense/healing), Neutral (control/utlitliy), Evil (damage).


Lawful + Natural = long rest control effects = wizards.
Chaotic + Evil = at-will damage = assassins.
Nature + Neutral = short rest control and utility = druid (short rest shape change).
Lawful + Good = continuous defense = paladins / life clerics.

That's 9 different "base" classes. But you can still multi-class.

Lawful/Evil + Natural = short rest damage and defense = Barbarian.
Chaotic + Nutral/Evil = at-will damage and control = Warlock

So this...

MoonSong said:

I don't get the reasoning. Why is sorcerer a wizard kit? why not a class?

Click to expand...

Because a sorcerer uses wizardly magic and a sorcerer is not that much different from a wizard to justify a new class.
A different class would have their own magic, like a cleric, who uses priestly magic.

steeldragons said:

But back to the original matter of this post, could D&D get away with defining magics as DIVINE, NATURE, and ARCANE.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you're missing a few other types:

SONIC - the sound-based magic that Bards (and only Bards) use. Really no subsets required, it just is what it is.
PSIONIC - magic direct from the mind rather than from a spell or device

I think "NATURE" can be absorbed into the other two (or four) as a subset. (then again, I've always seen Druids as Nature Clerics, and it'd be easy enough to come up with an arcane equivalent (but please don't call it Witch!).

With, then, each one of them broken down into limited subsets...not even the Spheres of 2e, and certainly not the cacophony of noise that were clerical spells in 3.x, but a very board, generalization and simplification of categories such as:

Mind Magic (illusions & enchantments)
Energy [or Force or Raw?] Magic (evocations & abjurations, maybe some conjurations)
Physical [or Body or Form] Magic (conjurations & transmutations, maybe some abjurations)

With Divination, then, as a catch-all for everybody's Detection spells and Scrying and, let's call it,...
"Soul" Magic (necromancy and vivomancy[healing], using necrotic and/or radiant energies, respectively, that are normally the purview of -and so, many of their spells would fall in this category- the clerics)

Does that help or hurt the dividing up of classes/subclasses? Make things simpler or more complicated? Or just distinct with no difference? [I looooathe distinctions without differences...almost as much as "change for change's sake" ?

Click to expand...

Makes it more complicated, at first glance.

Other than Illusion and Necromancy which are distinct enough to support their own classes, for my part the various schools of arcane magic might as well not exist. It's all just general arcane magic, so treat it as such. Wizard (general arcane magic), Illusionist (illusions and a bit of general), Necromancer (necromancy and a bit of general) and Sorcerer (general but using a bunch of different prep and casting mechanics).

Divine magic is all the same - the deities just shovel it into you each morning until you're full. Here the variances should be more by deity - each deity ideally should have a few spells of its own and have deity-specific variants on many of the rest. Won't happen, sadly, for the practical reason that to do this properly would require a standalone Cleric book big enough to kill bears with a single blow....

Bardic sound magic needs its own entire system with ability (I don't call them spells, for Bards) lists etc., but it'd only have to be done once.

Psionic "magic" - just like Bardic: its own system, with its own ability lists.

Lanefan

mellored said:

So this...

	Good Defense	Nature Control/Utility	Evil Damage
Lawful Daily	Cleric	Wizard	Necromancer
Neutral Short Rest	Paladin	Druid	Evoker
Chaotic At-Will	Fighter	Tactician	Assassin

Click to expand...

At first glance, that's a lot of casters: all the Lawfuls, 2-and-a-half out of three of the Neutrals, and as I've no idea what you mean by a "Tactician" class somewhere between 0 and 1 of the Chaotics. Only the Fighter and Assassin are clearly non-casters - wouldn't mind seeing a couple more.

I tend to group bard spellcasting under arcane as "words of creation" I think of it as a very specific arcane form which can blur the line between arcane and divine magic.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Dukey said:

Because a sorcerer uses wizardly magic and a sorcerer is not that much different from a wizard to justify a new class.
A different class would have their own magic, like a cleric, who uses priestly magic.

Click to expand...

Truth be told, were it up to me I'd put all divine and arcane casters on to a variant of the Sorcerer mechanics (mostly because over the years I've developed a deep dislike of pre-memorization of spells) only with more spells in their repertiore than a Sorcerer normally has. This means the Sorcerer class as its own thing would disappear.

Lanefan said:

Truth be told, were it up to me I'd put all divine and arcane casters on to a variant of the Sorcerer mechanics (mostly because over the years I've developed a deep dislike of pre-memorization of spells) only with more spells in their repertiore than a Sorcerer normally has. This means the Sorcerer class as its own thing would disappear.

Click to expand...

I guess you can reverse it and make sorcerer the base arcane caster class if you prefer these mechanics and have the wizard with spell memorization be the kit of this class. Alternatively you can make the "no spell memorization' a skill/feat/proficiency/other mechanic to be chosen for any spellcaster.