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

[Olgar Shiverstone]

That's good.

So now what do we do with it?

 

[steeldragons]

That's good.

So now what do we do with it?

Bow down and accept its supreme rulership of the multiverse.

Or just lookit the pretty colors.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I find this very interesting. You hoist a flag, and while I have other ideas for some of the class names, I respect your choices because you do all the hoistin'.

Your crown jewel is aptly named and a true conversation piece as well as a great educational tool. While not perfect it's still brilliant.

Mind you, perfect D&D is not D&D.

 

[steeldragons]

There is a huge difference between "I solve challenges using my magic" and "I solve challenges using my arcane knowledge of magic", the later excludes a big amount of characters the former embraces. (again more to that below)

Quite simply, there is not a "huge difference." There just isn't. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion with so deliberate an avoidance of fundamental comprehension. But I will listen to[read] the rest of your argument. *shrug* Maybe something will click.

I argue that having the ability to control something doesn't really matches with knowing that same thing, under your premise and ample meaning of knowledge (and to be honest is fair, such is the way people normally use the word knowledge, most people can safely exchange "I can cook" with "I know how to cook").

"Most people" not including, obviously, yourself. You want to see a distinction between saying "I can [make magic happen]" and "I know how to [make magic happen]." that warrants separate classes.

There isn't one. They simply do not.

How 'bout this...Are Fighter and Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger separate because one "can [use weapons]" and another "knows how to [use weapons]"? No.

Or, perhaps the more direct question/example would be: Do a Cleric of a God of Healing and a Cleric of a God of Battle warrant separate classes because one "can [pray to my god for magic powers]" and the other "knows how to [pray to my god for magic powers]?" Or even a Cleric of a pantheon vs. a Cleric of "beliefs/ideals" (i.e. in a game world where deities don't exist or religion is not broached)? They are all Clerics.

Every character solves challenges through something and knowledge. and as consequence saying "magic and knowledge" is redundant, thus saying a wizard solves challenges with magic produces no dissonance to me. (see the next paragraph)

So, basically, all this goes away if I simply change the premise definiton of Wizard classes to be "they use magic" and drop the "knowledge." Then, all of the sudden, you're on board and it makes sense to you?! SOLD! Done.

Under the amended expression "using magic",

*rolls eyes* Yes, I amended what I said originally from "who handles things primarily with" to the verb "to use". My bad for this obviously confusing change. Don't know what I was thinking.

yes innate, learned, pacted, bestowed, cursed, inherited magic users are indeed a single class.

Excellent! So we're all clear and good then.

The problem is this second instance of "knowledge" is a using the more restricted definition of knowledge,

What second instance? I only use the term knowledge once.

the one that translates as lores, academical knowledge, erudite knowledge, mental knowledge all of them beyond simple know how, then this second instance of "using magic and knowledge" is more restricted as reinforced by your view of the Druid.

Mmmm. No. No it doesn't. You are reading implications into the term that are simply not meant. The presence of "knowledge" in the class description is a literary symmetry that I enjoy. I wanted/needed two things that Wizards do...to mirror "weapons and toughness" or "skills and trickery." Hence "magic annnnnd...Ah! knowledge, I guess."

This does not somehow mandate "book knowledge." It does not put "natural know how" or "xyz Lore skills" in stone...it means they know stuff the other three class groups don't. Yes, all classes have knowledge of something...but the Wizard group, collective broad default being referred to as Mages, have knowledge about things the other classes do not and use this knowledge as a matter of course.

Not to get all bogged down in your invoking ["my view of"] the Druid, but maybe it'll help clear up...a Druid knows how to travel around in the wilds, knows plants and animals, can read the weather, etc... None of that, necessarily, and certainly not explicitly says "academic" or "erudite" knowledge. Experience, yes certainly. Training or tutelage, perhaps. Books and research, perhaps...though in a druid's case I'm inclined to think not. But they have specialized knowledge of topics that other classes don't.

Lemme ask...if I had instead said "magic and intelligence" would we be having this issue? I suspect so as we'd just be arguing over the term intelligence since "[everyone knows] Sorcerers are Charisma-based casters and by that [obviously] deserve their own class."

"...magic and their minds..." ? "...magic and reason..." ? "...magic and occult knowledge..." ? "...occult experiences..." ?

Again conflating the know how with the know why.

I'm not conflating anything. You are...whatever the opposite of conflation is...deliberately and despite all argument to the contrary, when I am saying, point blank, repeatedly, "You can make all of the sorcerer characters you want. Alllll different kinds of sorcerers, if you like. They are not sufficiently different an archetype to warrant their own class, so they go [here]."

Having the know how means you have the skill to control or do something, Having the know why translates in a whole different set of abilities. For example my brother is a great driver,...-snip driving/driver example-

I have a very limited patience for "fantasy magic people should be like this cuz in the real world..." arguments. Not to put too fine a point on it...This kind of thing doesn't matter/apply to the creating or organizing of classes.

If a game presents me with a class: "Driver." What they do in the game is "drive."

And, then, a separate class: "Vehicular Facilitator." What they do in the game is..."drive."

I'm setting it on fire. The "know how" vs. the "know why" are irrelevant. What the how or why do is the same.

Bottom line, for me, this kind of "example" is not productive to these sorts of discussions.

If there was a generic driver class he would be the archetypal driver and I would be an example of a very specialized build, if driving a car was instead using magic, he would be a sorcerer and I would be a wizard but under your chart there would be no way to accurately represent him,

Yes. Yes there is. Under my chart you and he both go under the Wizard group umbrella...who's default class is a Mage. Now, you and he can each "build" mages with different fluff to explain your driving ability. OR you can build something and call it a Wizard and he can build something and call it Sorcerer. But you're still sitting inside that dark blue box, because you are both drivers.

As long as the book-learned wizard remains the default, there is no place in the class for the sorcerer. (And that is why I like the sorcerer class, it allows me to make characters that couldn't be created under the wizard class and it also allows to create the same characters that could)

Soooo...you can do the same thing or not [which still, I assert is merely fluff for spell-casting], but you can't have them considered within the same class group?

And absolutely NO WHERE IN HERE did I make, what I am assuming you mean, "[book-learning] wizard" the default. Again, you have distinct blinders on/bias against the term (as you insist on having with "knowledge").

Used here, quite clearly I thought, the Wizard class group is those classes which rely or use or "handle things primarily with" arcane magic/spells. The class group, as defined is the broadest of those archetypes, inclusive of all types of arcane magic-users who are not filtered with some abilities/skills from other classes.

That's allllll "Wizard" or "Mage" is here. Colored with books, wands, at will, cuz mommy was a dragon, or dancing naked under a moon...it's all the same shtick. That's what they do, how they take on adventuring.

And no, I'm not now conflating "the how" and "the what." They're "what they do" and "how" are two different ways of saying the same damned thing.

Best I can do for you...and those who agree/think like you, would be (since I guess it isn't obvious) change the "Witch" type, applicable to all of the spellcasters in the Wizard quadrant, to "Sorcerer" as one could argue an "innate [arcane] spellcaster" can be made out of any of those class archetypes (that are actual archetypes warranting their own class).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go delete "knowledge" from the initial post so this can all go away and we need not ever speak of it again.

 

[ArturoMoreno]

But the Warlock gets his powers from an otherworldly entity. How is he not on the left side?

And what would be there instead?
The Sorcerer probably, since his magic comes from within...?