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

[steeldragons]

I've done it! I've FINALLY done it!

The absolute ultimate breakdown and organization of D&D characters! The Holy Grail of archetypes! The Rosetta Stone of classes!

Anything not on this diagram is easily added/specialized by themes, skill sets/kits, backgrounds, etc...

Using 1e-thru-4e, 5e, OSR, Pathfinder, you name it...you can get a class you want following this.

First, the visual...then explanations.


The gem is initially cut into quadrants:
The Warriors: Those classes who handle things primarily with weapons and toughness.
The Wizards: Those classes who handle things primarily with magic spells.
The Rogues: Those classes who handle things primarily with skills and trickery.
The Priests: Those classes who handle things primarily with beliefs and enlightenment (which might include weapons and/or spells and/or skills, toughness, knowledge and/or trickery, depending on the beliefs/deities),

Note: Warriors and Wizards are diametrically opposed. Brawn vs. Brain. Combat vs. Study. Power through external force (weapons) vs. Power through personal force (arcane magic).
Rogues and Priests are diametrically opposed. Self-reliance vs. Reliance on an Other. Skills vs. Faith. Learning vs. Believing. Power through personal force (skills) vs. Power through external force (divine magic):

Further detail to follow...

 

[steeldragons]

The Big Four need no introduction. They are the Cardinal Four classes. The "default"/"basic" classes for each type of character. These are the 1st Tier classes, if you will. The broadest most flexible categories of archetypes, each providing a myriad of kinds of characters within them.:
Fighter
Mage
Cleric
Thief.

From these, where they meet "in the middle"/50-50 split, we get (for lack of a better term) the "4 Corners":
Where Fighter & Cleric meet = Paladin
Where Fighter & Rogue meet = Ranger
Where Wizard & Priest meet = Druid
Where Wizard & Rogue meet = Warlock

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.

Also counted among the 2nd Tier are the "outlier" classes. These are archetypes that have been around in the D&D game in some form or another for a rather long time and also offer a broad array of possibilities that can not be otherwise encapsulated:
Monk [in the martial artist sense]: a class beyond the Warrior who can potentially simulate elements from any other class.
Psychic: a class beyond the Wizard who can potentially simulate elements from any other class.
Bard: a class within, yet beyond, the cardinal four that encompasses elements from any other class.

From here, we begin to shade the greys, as it were. Those classes that are a specific type, within "one step" of the Big Four, they could be considered further members of the 2nd tier or a 2.5 tier. Alternately they are easily subsumed within the Defaults/Cardinal class, but I think their archetypes are both broad enough and supported from literature, myth and [in some cases] history to warrant carving them out of the default block:

WARRIOR + priest = The Cavalier: a Fighter with a degree of enlightenment (perhaps defined as "honor" or "chivalry"), but not such a devotion as to warrant the Paladin's magic-mojo.

WARRIOR + rogue = The Barbarian: a Fighter with a degree of skill, though toughness and ferocity outweigh the skill-dependence (in and out of battle) of the Ranger.

WIZARD + priest = The Necromancer: a Wizard with a degree of enlightenment (perhaps defined as delving into layers of magic not normally understood or attempted), but not such a devotion as to warrant the powers of a Druid.

WIZARD + rogue = The Illusionist: a Wizard with a degree of skill, though trickery and study outweigh the skill-dependence and self-reliance needed to work the raw energies of a Warlock.

Conversely (moving diagonally in the opposite directions) and contrarily (moving across the center of the cardinal points), the archetypes are not quite so strong...I would classify these as the 3rd Tier of classes. Their fluff and crunch variations are less open to flexibility. The focus of the character becomes more set.:

Conversely:
ROGUE + warrior = The Assassin: a Rogue augmenting their skills and trickery with weapons and toughness (particularly to kill).

ROGUE + wizard = The Trickster: a Rogue augmenting their skills and trickery with arcane magic and knowledge.

PRIEST + warrior = The Mystic: a Priest augmenting their enlightenment with weapons and toughness.

PRIEST + wizard = The Thaumaturgist: a Priest augmenting their enlightenment with arcane magic and knowledge.

Contrarily:
WIZARD + warrior = The Battlemage: a Wizard who augments their magic with armor and/or weapons. Note, the Battlemage is a step toward or possible variation on the "all-encompassing-yet-outsider-class", Bard.

WARRIOR + wizard = The Sword-caster [so called because I couldn't decide on a Swordmage/Spellsword/Eldritch Knight term, but wanted it clear that the Sword/Weapon/Warrior bit comes first]: a Warrior who augments their weapons and toughness with magic and knowledge. Note, the Sword-caster is a step toward or possible variation on the "all-encompassing-yet-outsider-class", Bard.

PRIEST + rogue = The Shaman: a Priest who augments their enlightenment with skills and/or trickery. Note, the Shaman is a step toward or possible variation on the "all-encompassing-yet-outsider-class", Bard.

ROGUE + priest = The Avenger: a Rogue who augments their skills and trickery with some beliefs and/or enlightenment. Note, the Avenger is a step toward or possible variation on the "all-encompassing-yet-outsider-class", Bard.

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.

The Warlord: the inspirational warrior-leader type. Any Fighter, Paladin, Cavalier, Barbarian, Ranger, Sword-caster, Monk or Bard could be made/played as a Warlord.
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.
The Acrobat: the flipping, tumbling, speedy master of balance and reflexes. Any Thief, Assassin, Avenger, Trickster, Ranger, Warlock or Bard could be made/played as an Acrobat.
The Witch: the natural weaver of hexes and brews. Any Mage, Druid, Necromancer, Illusionist, Warlock, Psychic or Bard could be made/played as a Witch.

And thus, the answer to the eternal question of "How many/Which classes are needed to make/cover the bases" for a fantasy (D&D-esque) RPG...There ya go. Anywhere from 4 to 27.

Cut options off anywhere after Tier 1 you prefer.
1) Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Rogue
2) Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Warlock...Monk, Bard, Psychic
2.5) Cavalier, Barbarian, Necromancer, Illusionist
3) Mystic, Shaman, Thaumaturgist, Assassin, Avenger, Trickster, Sword-caster, Battlemage
4) Warlord, Witch, Oracle, Acrobat

 

[TwoSix]

I have to admit, I like this a lot. I like the feel of the Druid as a learned holy man, and the Necromancer as a Wizard who studies the mysteries of life and death like priest do.

Considering the mystic/cleric/thaumaturgist split: I can see the thaumaturgist as the FF White Mage/4e Invoker archetype. The paladin has his own set of archetypal abilities that are distinct from the cleric's spells. What would be the distinction between a cleric and a mystic? Assuming we have the cleric as the classic armored healer from OD&D on.

 

[MoonSong]

Sorry, but I fail to see where does the sorcerer fall in the middle of this all, you know the likable unschooled and potentially ignorant or even outright stupid wielder of instinctive magic who isn't afraid of getting his hands dirty and could come from literally anywhere any place in the world even those were books don't exist?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sorry, but I fail to see where does the sorcerer fall in the middle of this all, you know the likable unschooled and potentially ignorant or even outright stupid wielder of instinctive magic who isn't afraid of getting his hands dirty and could come from literally anywhere any place in the world even those were books don't exist?

From what steeldragons put forth... my initial instinct would be that the sorcerer would sit next to the psychic, as the class outside of the wizard. So it'd be Psychic/Sorcerer. Both of them are instinctual wielders of magic (like you said). One doesn't learn to be psychic (like a wizard), you either are or you aren't (just like a sorcerer.)

Personally... I've never seen "psionic" magic as different from "arcane" magic because they're both nebulous terms that do nothing to describe what the forces involved actually are. Sso to me psychics are just sorcerers who work with mind magic / charms etc.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't TOTALLY agree, but heck, I love a good graphic, and respect the thoroughness here, so

 

[steeldragons]

Considering the mystic/cleric/thaumaturgist split: I can see the thaumaturgist as the FF White Mage/4e Invoker archetype. The paladin has his own set of archetypal abilities that are distinct from the cleric's spells. What would be the distinction between a cleric and a mystic? Assuming we have the cleric as the classic armored healer from OD&D on.

Well, the armor-wearing healer cleric would be one of those many myriads of the default Priest. The Mystic, and I'll add here that coming up with a term for this one was the most difficult/last one I filled in, so a better title is entirely possible, I was thinking would be the more combat inclined/martial artist. The "monk-ish" guy but with the "holy-disciplined-ascetic" baggage (which the more straight "Warrior martial artist Monk" doesn't need/have) and some "priestly" powers but not spells, like a Paladin has.

Sorry, but I fail to see where does the sorcerer fall in the middle of this all,

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.

you know the likable unschooled and potentially ignorant or even outright stupid wielder of instinctive magic who isn't afraid of getting his hands dirty and could come from literally anywhere any place in the world even those were books don't exist?

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 TOTALLY agree, but heck, I love a good graphic, and respect the thoroughness here, so...

My thanks. I appreciate that.

 

[TerraDave]

you have ranger and druid as opposites...

partial fail or total fail?

 

[Minigiant]

Good looking thing, you got there.

A suggestion for where Monks, Psychics, and Sorcerers (and Invokers) could be is outside the Tier 1 classes as the "natural" or innate class. Don't know what the innate Rogue is though.

 

[steeldragons]

you have ranger and druid as opposites...

partial fail or total fail?

Druid is the combination of a Priest, using the powers from their beliefs, and a Wizard, using magic and knowledge, to tackle the challenges of adventure. So it sits in that corner between Priest and Wizard.
Ranger is the combination of a Warrior, using weapons and toughness, and Rogue, using skills and trickery, to tackle the challenges of adventure. So it sits in that corner between Warrior and Rogue.

Perhaps you would rather, look at it as "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.

So, no. No "fail" in any amount as far as I can see. But thanks for voicing your concern/confusion.