EUREKA! THE ULTIMATE CROWN JEWEL OF CLASS ARCHTYPES!!!

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
"Druid is the nature-themed spell-caster. Ranger who is the nature-themed fighting guy." Naturally, as I've set up the rest of the jewel, they should sit across from each other.

Ahh. But that what they basically are. "Priest of (god of) Magic" would fit in your "druid" space much better, something like "swashbuckler" would fit in your ranger space better.

I am starting to see some smoke and sparks coming from the jewel.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TwoSix

Master of the One True Way
Ahh. But that what they basically are. "Priest of (god of) Magic" would fit in your "druid" space much better, something like "swashbuckler" would fit in your ranger space better.
Well, 4e saw enough thematic coherence within the "outdoors/nature power" concept to codify it as the primal power source. So the question is, would it make sense as an overlay over the priest pole (like the Sorcerer could do with the Wizard) or added as a 5th pole in a modified pentagon? Or just keep it as a thematic tag to be added onto some of the positions within the layout?
 

Razjah

Explorer
I don't even care about classes, I really like this for explaining classless systems. You can fight and use magic. Which one do you lean towards?

I have seen many people explain classless builds in terms of D&D classes (which I find pretty funny) but using this as a guideline for how to conceptualize classes is excellent. Great work! I can definitely see myself using this in the future.
 

PigKnight

First Post
I expected this to be bad from the title, but...

Thor+I+LIKE+IT+_b7b74861f3312a5a22ea7d273c923db9.jpg
 

Remathilis

Legend
Ok, I has some questions on your tier 3 and 4.

The Oracle, as Pathfinder presents it, is a sorcerer version of the cleric. Not sure how it matches the priest/rogue spectrum.
The Mystic class is too vague. There have been three mystics in D&D; a Basic Class which was the monk, a 2e class which was a kinda witch-priest, and a 3e class which was a sorcerer version of the cleric. None of them scream "battle caster". CRUSADER might fill that niche though.
I think Witch is probably in a better place where the thaumatgist is. Most of the witch classes I saw were a mix of arcane enchantments/necromancy and divine healing/divination. I'd put the evoker (a mage focusing on battle magic) or the sorcerer in where the witch is now.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Well, Defcon's suggestion as putting it into the Psychic is a good one. There's no reason one couldn't flavor someone with a Psychic's innate powers as a sorcerer.

What I was thinking was it is simply one of the myriad of possibilities for the "Wizard: Mage" default. You could easily create a Mage whose magic powers are innate and perfected through trial/error/practice instead of study.

Alternatively, if the "But I have to be able to use weapons and wear armor too cuz [for some reason] that's what I think a sorcerer is!", one could make a "sorcerer" from the Bard. Again, the Bard character just flavored as an innately magical versus studied/learned person...not so far fetched as the fantasy genre goes.



That sounds like a very specific individual, not a fantasy character archetype...and no, I do not know them. :) I see nothing in this character that can not be accomplished but using a Mage, Psychic or Bard...possibly others as well. But definitely not something requiring its own facet in the Crown Jewel.

As long as the only thing defining a "Sorcerer", as you seem to be thinking, is an arcane magic-user who is innately magical/doesn't need to study, that is a matter of fluff easily accomplished through any of the arcane spell-casting variations I've listed or simply be included as one of the options within the default block. A Witch could be a sorcerer. A Thaumaturgist could be a sorcerer (I, personally, would not fluff them as such. But it is a possibility I wouldn't begrudge others). An Illusionist or Trickster could be a sorcerer...as well as any Mage, Psychic or Bard.

I don't know as long as you equate the arcane caster with knowledge you cannot truly call it a day. You defined the Druid as the learned priest by putting it next to the arcane axis. The Sorcerer goes beyond mere fluff, unlike the dnd wizard and the bard the sorcerer class isn't knowledge focused, simple refluffing doesn't cut it (yes a sorcerer can be knowledgeable, but in the four versions of the class, ARcana or knowledge arcana is always the lowest point of the class, in 4e the compulsory arcane trainning was out of place given that Int competes with a co-secundary score -dex-, and in 3.0, 3.5 and PF is to qualify for some fix feats and wizardy PrCs) Just given this fact makes the sorcerer class even more generic than the wizard -the core of the class isn't "mommy was a dragon/angel/thing" but "I just have magic" compare it with the "I studied to get magic" from wizards.

Also how do you refluff the compulsory esoteric knowledge training on the wizard to have nothing to do with knowledge? hoe do you refluff a class feature that centers on the existance of books so it has nothing to do with books?
 

Orius

Unrepentant DM Supremacist
I generally like it. I like the core 4 classes and the way you have them paired and diametrically opposed, it's the same way I view the classes' place in the game. I like the bard at the center too, as the class that can do a little bit of all the other classes. Psychic has a good positioning outside since they don't really fit into the standard structure, though some monk concepts could just as well fit between Warrior and Priest (fighting and enlightenment.). I'd probably cut off after 2 or 2.5.

Main problem with the ranger is that it's a Warrior with touches of rogue and druid. Warrior + Rogue works well with the diagram, but it's harder to mix the Warrior + Druid aspect when Druid is between Wizard and Priest and Wizard is the opposite of Warrior.
 

Balesir

Adventurer
Well, 4e saw enough thematic coherence within the "outdoors/nature power" concept to codify it as the primal power source. So the question is, would it make sense as an overlay over the priest pole (like the Sorcerer could do with the Wizard) or added as a 5th pole in a modified pentagon? Or just keep it as a thematic tag to be added onto some of the positions within the layout?
Yes, I can't avoid thinking that the "jewel" could benefit from being made three dimensional. If you add one "pole" above for "allies with the power of nature" and one below for "users of raw talent" I think you could find homes for the monk, ranger, druid, sorceror and psychic that fit better with their overall tone. Ranger has only been without (nature) magic in recent editions, and 3.x/4E classes like Warden would fit in the space between Warrior and Druid, too. Shaman could be better integrated...
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
I don't even care about classes, I really like this for explaining classless systems. You can fight and use magic. Which one do you lean towards?

I have seen many people explain classless builds in terms of D&D classes (which I find pretty funny) but using this as a guideline for how to conceptualize classes is excellent. Great work! I can definitely see myself using this in the future.

I expected this to be bad from the title, but...

Thor+I+LIKE+IT+_b7b74861f3312a5a22ea7d273c923db9.jpg

Thanks! Glad you like it...I'd not remotely considered it as a classless system aid, but if it helps, I'm so pleased! :D
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Ok...Well, I anticipated some of this...er, stuff...So I'll try to take it on one issue at a time. DAMN y'all are some whiny baetches. hahaha.

FIRST, I will say (in hopes of quenching a few fires) that the diagram is not established to relate to mechanics or access to all class abilities and powers. The fact that the Ranger is not near the druid has no baring on whether or not you could give you Ranger some druidic magic.

To quote myself:
The 2nd Tier classes, if you will. Marginally more defined in abilities, but still open to fluff interpretation and crunch focus in various ways (a Paladin can be powered/devoted to a god or virtues or oaths, set alignments or not, etc...; Druids can be primarily shapeshifters or spellcasters or beastmasters, etc...). But each still maintains a degree of broadness for interpretation of characters.

So your Rangers, even though, yes, on the diagram they're alllll the way on the other side, could still be a druid magic caster, or a beastmaster or have some arcane spells or be a warrior who tracks, or a rogue who wears chainmail, or a bow-specialized scout or a battle-axe swinging unparalleled slayer of things big and bad...or a bunch of other things.

They are, primarily, first, foremost, undeniably, and I argue moreso than other class types here presented, a class that conquers the tribulations of adventuring as a Warrior (weapons, toughness) and Rogue (skills and trickery) in equal measure. Whatever specific abilities they have or however detailed or mechanically tweaked out those things are is not something this diagram is designed to relay.

This kind of thinking goes for everything on the diagram, not just the Ranger.
Ahh. But that what they basically are. "Priest of (god of) Magic" would fit in your "druid" space much better, something like "swashbuckler" would fit in your ranger space better.

I am starting to see some smoke and sparks coming from the jewel.
Then I suggest you take the tinfoil out of the microwave. :D

A "Priest of [a god of] Magic" would be likely a Cleric under the big, broad, Priest block. I could see the case, in a god of Magic's case, for an order of Thaumaturgists equally well. No reason they would go in the archetypal space of the Druid. They are a Priest...of a God...what that is a god of does not change the "How they do adventuring" of the Cleric class.

It is interesting to note that Swashbuckler was in the bidding for a space for a while, but while I certainly agree it is a mixed Warrior/Rogue, it is not in my view the perfect mix of the Warrior/Rogue. Let me explain.

Again, looking at the definitions and reasoning behind my placements for what goes where and why, a Swashbuckler, for all of their jumping and flipping and chandelier swinging antics is, foremost, a Warrior with some [likely nautical] skills. They tackle adventuring through the use of their weapons, possibly with a secondary Charisma/persuation/interactions thing going on. But they are going to pull out their rapier (or cutlass) and dirk and go to town.

Reading through how I classified things, the Swashbuckler fits more into the space of Warlords and Acrobats. Any Fighter or Thief or Assassin or Bard or, for that matter, Warlord or Acrobat dressed up in light armor with a light/simple blade and high Dex. could be made/played as a Swashbuckler. SO, I'll grant they're a large enough type to be included but they are not, necessarily, an archetype sufficient to occupy the full 2nd tier "corner spot" of the Ranger.

Ok, I has some questions on your tier 3 and 4.
Fire away. :)

The Oracle, as Pathfinder presents it, is a sorcerer version of the cleric. Not sure how it matches the priest/rogue spectrum.
It sits where it is, rather contained by the Priestly quandrant. As explained in the long post at the beginning:
The 4th Tier includes those very specific types which warrant calling out of the default cardinal points because they can be applied to any class with which they align, including outliers, extending to the center. Since their type is so broadly applicable, I thought they warranted inclusion.
-snip-The Oracle: the divinely gifted or inspired seer of things unknown. Any Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Thaumaturgist, Mystic, Shaman, Psychic, Monk or Bard could be made/played as an Oracle.
So, in that vein, it isn't really there to fit the priest/rogue spectrum so much as a neat place to put them within the "center" of Priest/Cleric-land.

The Mystic class is too vague. There have been three mystics in D&D; a Basic Class which was the monk, a 2e class which was a kinda witch-priest, and a 3e class which was a sorcerer version of the cleric. None of them scream "battle caster". CRUSADER might fill that niche though.
As I mentioned in an earlier response, the was the toughest block to label...Crusader is good...I am almost inclined to change it. However, the problem there becomes, I can see Paladins, Clerics and Cavaliers (all very easily) being Crusaders...warlords and fighters as well...I think Crusader might be another little "type" [a la warlord, oracle, et. al.]. It is a tough nut this "Priestly/enlightened character with some Warrior training but more/closer to a priest than a warrior." But, as the jewel is built around the Block ---> block model...a "Cleric leaning toward Fighter" to balance the "Fighter leaning toward Cleric" are both needed...Actually, put like that, Crusader again sounds like a better option.

I think Witch is probably in a better place where the thaumatgist is. Most of the witch classes I saw were a mix of arcane enchantments/necromancy and divine healing/divination. I'd put the evoker (a mage focusing on battle magic) or the sorcerer in where the witch is now.
See above re: Oracle/those 4th tier "types."

Evoker, like Swashbuckler, was on the board for a time...and certainly makes sense where you propose. Witch is more where it was, though it does work in terms of my explanation and I stand by that, but it was a bit of a shoehorn.

Witch, initially was floating somewhere between Mage and Druid (to insinuate the healing/divination you mention)...but then I thought of all of the various types of characters that could be made/played as a "Witch" and it became the Wizard's "called out type" that works with just about everything else in that quadrant. Thus, you can make a Druid-ish Witch as easily as you can make a "faye-illusionist witch." So...yeah, that's why it's there where it is.

more to come...and thanks to everyone for the comments, even those disagreeing!
 

Remove ads

Top