Whatever happened to Fighters, Magic-Users, Clerics and Thieves?
They're all growed up.
I like this, though I suspect I'll be in the minority.
I suspect I'm in the minority, as well. haha. But figured I'd throw it out there anyway.
As for your actual list:
So, Crusader is a War Cleric (though the name makes me think it's a reskinned Paladin), a Healer is a Life Cleric, but what is an Avenger? Something of a Cleric-Thief cross?
For the Crusader, yes basically. What else is the "War Cleric" but a reskinned Paladin/Paladin-lite? And you got the Avenger right, or what I'm envisioning anyway, a Cleric-Thief mix for the Assassin's Creed folks..."I'm a thief/acrobat/assassin/bravo sanctioned by and//or working for the[a] church."
My worry here is that Hero and Swashbuckler (listed below) would tread on each other's toes.
I see why that might be/you might think that. I suppose my defense or attempted justifications would be:
1) Hero is Str. + Con+ Cha and Swbkr is Str + Dex + Cha, so they should -I am imagining- play/feel somewhat differently.
2) There are only so many variations of archetype you can throw in between any two classes. The options...or "spectrum," I suppose...become (in this case): Full Warrior (Fighter) --> Warrior with a little Rogue in the mix (Hero) --> [edit: Warrior/Rogue more-or-less even split which, for me, is the Ranger /edit] --> Rogue with a little Warrior in the mix (Swashbuckler) --> Full on Rogue (Thief).
and 3) somewhat obviously, the actual class features would be different so I would think there shouldn't be toooooo much toe stomping.
Necromancer should be more focused on hurting than healing. (I've never agreed with the classification of healing spells as necromantic).
Oh no. I don't either. I was just trying to be conservative and somewhat symmetrical in my wording. The necromancer's "healing" is of course, necromantic in nature in that they pull life OUT of somewhere to put some INTO whoever (usually themselves) is getting healed.
And is your Witch (Shaman?) kind of a Necro-Illusionist cross?
Not really no. Again, this was more trying to be consistant in my wording to get through things in a relatively short (or at least simply readable) descriptions. Witches, as I envision them, would be more of a combination of Illusionist and Druid, but some Necro-stuff in there, sure. Speaking with Dead? Summoning and Banishing spirits? Totally in a Witch's wheelhouse.
Amusingly, "flippy flip" is the term we always use for what Monks do.
haha. Accurate.
I really like the Investigator idea. Good one!
Thanks!
Still wondering if Swashbuckler and Hero are too close to being the same thing.
See above.
These look good, though how would you differentiate Jester from a normal Bard being played chaotically?
Well, my default Bard would probably have light and medium armors, the basic "Rogues" list of weapons, their harp/instrument, inspiration dice (I would think. I would keep them), and spells.
A Jester, as I said, would get less spells, I would probably restrict them to light armors only, some tumbling movement and/or "unarmored defense" type AC bonus, maybe some juggling/thrown weapon attack? But their "defining" feature (insofar as I've bothered to think this out off the top of my head)...what did I call them?..."Jokes & Rhymes" or whatever. No inspiration dice. Not necessarily and instrument/musical magic features. They'd basically like a walking, jumping, somersaulting, juggling Cutting Words.
Ah, here's where the "Shaman" name ended up.
You didn't think I'd leave the poor Shaman out in the cold, did you?
What about a Druid type who doesn't summon at all, instead focusing on spells (particularly healing), herbcraft (along with Ranger), and shapeshifting?
Well, that sounds mostly to me like what the default Druid would be. If they want to do a little summoning, there'll be access to spells for that. I don't believe "shapeshifting should be the focus of ANY druid class, myself. But for someone who wants to make it that, that was basically behind the idea of the Beast Druid...they would be getting more shapeshifting than the normal or Land Druid...and no one says they would HAVE to summon other animals.
While I love the Knight as a class I'm not sure there's enough in it to justify 4 classes. One of the Questing Knight or Cavalier could easily become the default Knight, and Paladin could either move up to Cleric, replacing Crusader; or move up to Fighter replacing Hero which gets subsumed into Swashbuckler.
That's specifically why I DIDN'T put it under the cleric or fighter list. I wanted them to be more difficult to be. I also think the inherent "knight-ly" flavor of the Paladin is different enough, especially taken with the Cavalier and what other Knight (Questing Knight was kind of a place holder and I honestly have no idea how I would differentiate the Default Knight, another Knight, and a Cavalier....Paladin's easy cuz you're adding magic.
But it is one of my "always been missing from D&D" fantasy archetypes and helped/helps to balance the "second tier of classes" to balance out Magical/caster vs. Non class options: Barbarians, Knights, Rangers vs. Bards, Druids, Warlocks.
To keep them less magic-based, suggest replacing magical trances and auras in the Warden with better tracking and herbcraft.
Well, I want a magical ranger
option. I don't love -but don't particularly mind- the idea of magic-wielding Rangers. They always have, after all. I just don't like/want/condone a base-Ranger that is dependent on spell use.
Meh - Warlocks add nothing for me.
Me neither, but they are head & shoulders more interesting and unique flavor/fluff-wise than Sorcerers and I needed to incorporate them someplace. Since the Sorcerer matched up with the whole "class with Point system" group, that puts Warlocks here.
These are all good, though I'd love to see Wild Magus be listed under a base class rather than tertiary.
Sorry. No can do, mi amigo.
Mages are the Base Wizard class, Warlocks are the Advanced Wizard class, Sorcerers are the "optional/Appendixed Power Point System" Wizard class. Just the way o' the world...of steeldragons.
