The Four (or Five) Primary Classes

[Crazy Jerome]

Oh what you were saying is the "idioms" represent the various approaches to an obstacle.

Prowess- A direct mundane approach (Mr. Prowess smashes through/jumps over the rock)

Cunning- An indirect mundane approach (Mr Cunning turns around, takes another path, and walks around the rock)

Arcane- warping reality with strange powers to overcome (Mr Arcane says something and the rock disappears)

Divine- Using the power of a stronger being (Mr Divine calls an agel and the angel lifts him over the rock)

Nature- Using the power of nature (Mr Nature says something and the rock gets up and moves out the way)

First two are correct, and the third is close to what I was envisioning. It wouldn't always be strange powers wielded--sometimes the knowledge alone is sufficient. Then the last two are supernatural versus natural--albeit in a fantastical setting. So if you channel or call on some "greater power" who does the heavy lifting--even if only to find your castle keys--that's supernatural. If you get the horse to do what you want, that's natural. If you get the griffen to do what you want, which is break the laws of physics flying with you on his back, that's probably also "natural".

The "magic" of any group would tend to extend the idiom. So a master of arcane spells probalby can't get a spell to have a forest temporarily grow thick, but a "natural" magic user can. (And a "cunning" magic user could fake it with illusions.) This even extends to prowess. Their magic makes them leap longer, fight better, etc.

Another way to think of it is to picture characters, and ask which idiom they are usually on. This is another slant on your how the character handles the obstacle. Point being here, that I find it easier to get a good match, typically with one primary and one secondary, than I do with classes, not matter how broadly or narrowly conceived.

Conan? Lots of prowess as his first choice, some cunning when necessary. Gandalf--who cares if he is a wizard, bard, cleric, "spell sword", etc. He is a wielder of strange lore, and then you bring in a secondary of cunning, natural, or supernatural, depending upon how you want to explain talking to giant eagles, fighting balors, etc. But no doubt Gandalf's approach is to "know" things, whether he uses actual magic to take advantage of this knowledge or not. (And of course, Gandalf is always a hard case.)

Is the Gray Mouser a rogue, "smart" fighter, "skilled" fighter, or something more exotic with multicassing to cover that trace of magic, such as bard? Is Fafhrd a barbarian, ranger, or fighter? Who cares? The Mouser is clearly based on cunning, with some secondary influences for prowess to get him out of trouble and even less influence from arcane to get him into it. Meanwhile, Fafhrd is prowess first, with a touch of natural or supernatural (depending again on where you want to draw the lines on those two).

Presumably, one could replace arcane, natural, and supernatural with a slightly different set of idioms, and the fits would be even more obvious.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think you've missed some potential combos. If you want flexibility; cover all possible combinations:

For four base classes: 4! combinations, or 24 total possible.

For five base classes: 5! combinations, or 120 total -- plenty for most games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'll just note that having provoked that reaction from several people, I've failed a little in my intent. I was deliberately going for things that aren't so tied to ability scores--the idea being that "prowess" implies certainly some strong physical strength, dexterity, and constitution, and isn't entirely unhelped by a touch of intelligence, wisdom, or charisma, either. Cunning is as much about fooling people as knowing what to do or how to do it. Arcane is about knowing strange stuff--whether used by Dex to mix odd potions or Con to withstand the terrible pull of some body draining process or Int to puzzle out how to make it work. And so forth. Sometimes the very last thing about dealing with the supernatural will be "wisdom"--albeit that will be more true of evil cultists of some alien power than the PCs.

You might think of these as more replacement power sources (in the 4E sense) than anything else. That's not exactly right, either, though. Thus calling them "idioms".

With idioms, look at the three "pillars", combat, exploration, and interaction, and ask how a character built on that idiom is going to handle it. A character built primarily on prowess faced with an interaction challenge might use intimidate (almost brute force, sort of based on Str) but might also, in some contexts, resort to taking the princess out on the dance floor. He is no great talker, but he "sweeps her off her feet" with his grace and poise.

If I had done a better job at teasing out my meaning, then the idioms would have more obviously and naturally crossed pillars and ability scores, instead of prompting the reaction I got. That said, this is all brainstorming. So don't let the above discourage you from running with it anywhere you want. My idea was not the intention of the several people who prompted it, either.

But I did want to state this in case anyone had some thoughts on running with it the way I originally intended, too.

Putting my game designer hat on, how does this help me design classes? I mean sure, the idioms DO make sense, but if they lack common mechanical underpinnings they're really just design notes. I still have to implement a game which translates character concept into game rules. For that task what I need is a grouping that pulls out common mechanics I can apply to different classes, which appears to be at least somewhat independent of idiom. The Monk illustrates this well. As a martial arts expert the monk logically relies on a form of prowess. I don't really see where 'divine' factors into that. Even if it does his version of 'divine' has nothing in common with that of the Priest class. Nor does his fighting technique have much in common with the fighter.

It seems like to me the more useful breakdown is more concrete.

Martial - characters who use weapons to fight
Magical - characters who cast spells
Cunning - characters who use cleverness
Social - characters who use 'people skills'

I can pull some subsystem designs out of this. Martial PCs leverage the weapon combat system, so there is an indication of some sort of fighting mastery subsystem there. Magical clearly indicates a casting subsystem. Cunning implies subsystems for sneaking, backstabbing, stealing, and physical deception. Social implies leadership/morale, and social influence/skill subsystems. Now, maybe there are other categories, I'm not sure, but I think that's a fairly good core list at least.

Now, clearly, different actual classes would potentially pull from multiple categories, but I should be able to build most concepts from the core mechanics I've identified and most of them will primarily emphasize one or another, with some degree of overlap. Thus:

Martial - Fighter, Barbarian
Magical - Wizard, Druid, Cleric, etc
Cunning - Rogues
Social - Bard might be purely social, but probably no class is ONLY Social.

Other classes will draw more from a couple of categories, the combinations would be again fairly obvious:

Martial/Magical - Paladin, Swordmage
Martial/Social - Warlord
Martial/Cunning - Ranger
Social/Magical - Bard

etc.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

In the white box, you only had the Fighter (fighting men), Wizards (magic users), and clerics. Not even a thief.

Of course, they added the thief and since then its been awesome, but is that to say it wasn't always awesome?

Personally, I'd like to see 4 core classes, but with all the others as specialization stuffs. Might sound odd, but didn't Aragorn start out as a fighter and trained into a ranger?
Just a thought, of course I will get that last part blown up with "he was always a ranger!" but personally, I feel the ranger is more than just a fighter, and that should be taken into account.

Also, why not just have 3, the fighter, the thief, and the magic user, have the magic user choose between arcane and divine spells at 1st level?
This had been brought up in the 3e Unearthed Arcana, I've always liked this idea, being able to build your character the way you want, because frankly, WoTC has not always been able to do it for me (cough cough samurai)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Putting my game designer hat on, how does this help me design classes? I mean sure, the idioms DO make sense, but if they lack common mechanical underpinnings they're really just design notes. I still have to implement a game which translates character concept into game rules...

It doesn't help you design classes directly, at all. What it does do (at least in theory) is show gaps in the mechanical framework or give hints where the mechanical boundaries might be drawn. And with at least two different categories of each idiom (stuff that doesn't use "magic" or "spells" versus stuff that does, you might have similar or different mechanics for each category.

For example, a big gap it identifies for me is that there is insufficient mechanical support for non-magical "strange lore". Whether we want to redefine something like "alchemy" as entirely non-magical or come up with some more robust "lore" mechanics than skill checks or something else, I don't know. Maybe there isn't anything good to put there, brainstormed gap notwithstanding.

Another example is the mechanics for trickery under cunning. Do you use skills for non-magical and spells for illusion? That's the obvious answer. But maybe you want something with more heft here for non-magical trickery, too. Then, having done that, you find that illusion spells are an extension of that.

That's theory of brainstorming. In practice, some of this will get you nowhere (and same is true of the OP and any other competing breakdowns). Then some of it might spark a neat mechanics or class, but the rest of the layout prove worthless. You push it as far as you can push it, knowing that some of it will need to be discarded.

The advantage of doing something like this instead of mapping directly to known mechanics--such as social skills or 1:1 with ability scores or other such obvious mappings--is that you don't automatically zero in on prior assumptions too soon. The idea of the "face guy" however implemented, is a classic case of such mappings because the mechanics are easy and obvious. But then we find the "face guy" idiom to be rather strained, outside of some formula screenwriting or games that have it because they have the obvious mechanics. In anything less one-dimensional, if there is a guy notably more "face" than the other characters, it's a combination of social skills and reputations, relationships, insights, etc.

Or in other words, something like what is in the OP is, IMO, more useful in where "filling out the grid" breaks, than where it works. This tells you where concepts are missing or insufficiently explored.

One of the reasons my particular mappings are on my mind is that I've been tinkering around with what "strange lore" or "cunning" mechanics there could be. If I get something worth sharing, I'll let you know.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It doesn't help you design classes directly, at all. What it does do (at least in theory) is show gaps in the mechanical framework or give hints where the mechanical boundaries might be drawn. And with at least two different categories of each idiom (stuff that doesn't use "magic" or "spells" versus stuff that does, you might have similar or different mechanics for each category.

For example, a big gap it identifies for me is that there is insufficient mechanical support for non-magical "strange lore". Whether we want to redefine something like "alchemy" as entirely non-magical or come up with some more robust "lore" mechanics than skill checks or something else, I don't know. Maybe there isn't anything good to put there, brainstormed gap notwithstanding.

Another example is the mechanics for trickery under cunning. Do you use skills for non-magical and spells for illusion? That's the obvious answer. But maybe you want something with more heft here for non-magical trickery, too. Then, having done that, you find that illusion spells are an extension of that.

That's theory of brainstorming. In practice, some of this will get you nowhere (and same is true of the OP and any other competing breakdowns). Then some of it might spark a neat mechanics or class, but the rest of the layout prove worthless. You push it as far as you can push it, knowing that some of it will need to be discarded.

The advantage of doing something like this instead of mapping directly to known mechanics--such as social skills or 1:1 with ability scores or other such obvious mappings--is that you don't automatically zero in on prior assumptions too soon. The idea of the "face guy" however implemented, is a classic case of such mappings because the mechanics are easy and obvious. But then we find the "face guy" idiom to be rather strained, outside of some formula screenwriting or games that have it because they have the obvious mechanics. In anything less one-dimensional, if there is a guy notably more "face" than the other characters, it's a combination of social skills and reputations, relationships, insights, etc.

Or in other words, something like what is in the OP is, IMO, more useful in where "filling out the grid" breaks, than where it works. This tells you where concepts are missing or insufficiently explored.

One of the reasons my particular mappings are on my mind is that I've been tinkering around with what "strange lore" or "cunning" mechanics there could be. If I get something worth sharing, I'll let you know.

Yeah, I'm not sure if your breakdown is more insightful than mine or not, but it is all worthy of some consideration. Here's the thing though, we're dealing with powerful basic archetypes with character classes, so in a sense we're already kind of obliged to provide mechanics of certain types and allocate them in certain ways. As a completely blank slate concept exploration you might be right, but we already KNOW that wizards will cast spells, fighters will swing swords, etc. There are some cases where we have choices, but mostly in the case of the 'tier 2 archetypes' like 'ranger' or 'druid', which are really in a sense refinements of more core archetypes (the fighter and the priest in this case).

 

[Pour]

What if classes started extremely specified and then ended up at some of the same design spaces at certain pivotal junctures?

For instance, a first level party might contain the shaman, druid, and witch doctor. Their low-Heroic capabilities are exceedingly different, mechanically and especially flavor wise. The shaman speaks with spirits and calls on totem guides, the druid shapeshifts and draws on natural forces, the witch doctor utilizes alchemy, poison, and rituals to lay hexes and sacred circles- but all are under an umbrella Primal source. Now, on the cusp of Paragon, the shaman, druid, and witch doctor come into some shared Primal design space, an iconic Primal power like 'Regeneration', or at Epic 'Reincarnation'. There could even be iconic lists, not unlike spell lists, where certain sources choose one of any number of Primal abilities. Maybe this occurs every 5 levels or so.

Take this a step further, and maybe roles are almost a source in their own right, and pivotal powers/abilities are gained every 5 levels or so independent of class. It would be an important step at character creation, probably right after class, and before even race, and grants you a necessary role feature (marking, big damage attack, or some sort of supplement/filter which allows for role-serving effects on powers). Then we could have effective Wizard defenders, laying a fireball and the creature at its epicenter becoming marked, or Cleric strikers who heal an adjacent ally and inflict damage of an equal amount on an adjacent enemy.

Call me crazy, but I'm in favor of many specified classes, not 4 basics. The archetypes should be the roles, in my opinion, and through them and perhaps some shared power source stuff serve their basic functions (aka are all effective, or conversely none are useless or broken). The class then becomes the fun, unique stuff on top.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Why have primary classes at all? Doesn't the fact that they shadow out potentially cool concepts right out of the gate kinda overshadow any pro they could possibly have?

Another sacred cow that needs to be slain / remain dead. And I must spread experience points around before awarding them to Pour.

 

[groklynn]

Well, why bard is a Society? And the scheme seems to be perfect for me:
Prowess (str) - martial, athletic, endurance, power combat (strikes, blows, swings)
Cunning (dex) - trickery, stealth, precisie combat (finesse, bows, throwing)
Arcane (int) - lore and book knowledge, incl. alchemy, arcane magic, rituals and etc.
Divine (wis) - power from the gods, not necessarily spells, but prayers, blessings and everything, granted from outsiders.
Nature (con) - power of nature itself, inner power of a living being and interaction with animals, plants, etc. incl. druidic-like, rage-like, and monk-like abilities (cause monk-psionic is lame, why didn't WotC watch at least one movie about shaolin monks where's half of a movie is a bout balance and unity with nature))
Supernatural (cha) - power from blood, gift of a society, talent or any possession of extraordinary abilities. like con based nature, but a realisation of those gifts is on a spirit and personality level.
my thoughts of a 6 basic power sources is a main idea for all the homebrew mods I wanna do with 4e. cause psy-monks are lame (one more time)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What if classes started extremely specified and then ended up at some of the same design spaces at certain pivotal junctures?

For instance, a first level party might contain the shaman, druid, and witch doctor. Their low-Heroic capabilities are exceedingly different, mechanically and especially flavor wise. The shaman speaks with spirits and calls on totem guides, the druid shapeshifts and draws on natural forces, the witch doctor utilizes alchemy, poison, and rituals to lay hexes and sacred circles- but all are under an umbrella Primal source. Now, on the cusp of Paragon, the shaman, druid, and witch doctor come into some shared Primal design space, an iconic Primal power like 'Regeneration', or at Epic 'Reincarnation'. There could even be iconic lists, not unlike spell lists, where certain sources choose one of any number of Primal abilities. Maybe this occurs every 5 levels or so.

Take this a step further, and maybe roles are almost a source in their own right, and pivotal powers/abilities are gained every 5 levels or so independent of class. It would be an important step at character creation, probably right after class, and before even race, and grants you a necessary role feature (marking, big damage attack, or some sort of supplement/filter which allows for role-serving effects on powers). Then we could have effective Wizard defenders, laying a fireball and the creature at its epicenter becoming marked, or Cleric strikers who heal an adjacent ally and inflict damage of an equal amount on an adjacent enemy.

Call me crazy, but I'm in favor of many specified classes, not 4 basics. The archetypes should be the roles, in my opinion, and through them and perhaps some shared power source stuff serve their basic functions (aka are all effective, or conversely none are useless or broken). The class then becomes the fun, unique stuff on top.

Well, I can still remember my first reaction to reading PHB1, which was that putting the entire power list inside each class was going to be unmaintainable. Always did believe power sources should have each been a pool of core powers.

Of course, if something like CJ's more abstract idioms were used then that would be out the window. Base classes would of course be another way to skin the same cat, though it wouldn't group all weapon using classes together. Then again, 4e power sources wouldn't quite achieve that either. The original concept of 'most things are MC of a few core classes' would, sort of. I'm not really 100% satisfied with any of the options. Classes clearly aren't going away, but in a sense they do get in the way of some design goals.