Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
6e, how would you sort the classes/sub-classs?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7322739" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>They're all growed up. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I suspect I'm in the minority, as well. haha. But figured I'd throw it out there anyway. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I see why that might be/you might think that. I suppose my defense or attempted justifications would be:</p><p>1) Hero is Str. + Con+ Cha and Swbkr is Str + Dex + Cha, so they should -I am imagining- play/feel somewhat differently.</p><p>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). </p><p>and 3) somewhat obviously, the actual class features would be different so I would think there shouldn't be toooooo much toe stomping. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>haha. Accurate.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Thanks!</p><p></p><p></p><p>See above.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p>You didn't think I'd leave the poor Shaman out in the cold, did you? </p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I want a magical ranger <em>option.</em> 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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Sorry. No can do, mi amigo. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7322739, member: 92511"] They're all growed up. :) I suspect I'm in the minority, as well. haha. But figured I'd throw it out there anyway. ;) 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." 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. 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. 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. haha. Accurate. Thanks! See above. 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. :) You didn't think I'd leave the poor Shaman out in the cold, did you? 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. 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. Well, I want a magical ranger [I]option.[/I] 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
6e, how would you sort the classes/sub-classs?
Top