D&D General Which classes fill in this chart?

[Ashrym]

Something that came to mind in another thread discussing class design and I was curious how people would fill out a class design that balances out the number of non-casters and casters better.

Classes​
Full Caster​	Half-Caster​	Non-Caster​
Bard​	​	​
Cleric​	Paladin​	Fighter​
Druid​	Ranger​	Barbarian​
Sorcerer​	​	​
Warlock​	​	​
Wizard​	Artificer​	Rogue​
​	​	Monk​

First, do we agree or disagree on the flow from cleric to fighter, druid to barbarian, and wizard to rogue? If so, how and where would you consider the flow.
Second, if we were to make new classes to fill in the progression, what would you add where in the chart?

For example, I was thinking a person could create a half-caster class called a jongleur followed by a non-caster class call a minstrel following bards. A psion and a psychic warrior fill in the pseudo-magic leading down to monk.

Sorcerers and warlocks are harder for me to come up with something that seem fitting.

Thanks in advance.

 

[steeldragons]

Move Bard and Warlock into Half-Caster. Move Ranger into Non-caster.

Then you may be getting close/on to something.

 

[Minigiant]

it would be a forced grid filling.
But if you forced me to grid fill

Full Caster	Half Caster	Non Caster
Bard	Skald	Dancer
Cleric	Paladin	Avenger
Druid	Ranger	Beastmaster
Shadowcaster	Assassin Scoundrel	Rogue
Shaman	Warden	Berserker
Sorcerer	Ragemage	Barbarian
Truenamer	????	Scholar
Warlock	Hexblade	Chosen
Wizard	Artificer	Warlord
????	Swordmage	Fighter
???	Master	Monk

 

[Ashrym]

Move Bard and Warlock into Half-Caster. Move Ranger into Non-caster.

Then you may be getting close/on to something.

The point I'm working towards is a full/half/non caster for each 5e full caster. There's just a lot of them. I could see something like this, however:

Classes​
Full Caster​	Half-Caster​	Non-Caster​
Cleric​	Paladin​	Fighter​
Druid​	Bard​	Ranger​
Sorcerer​	Warlock​	Bloodhunter​
Wizard​	Artificer​	Rogue​
​	​	Monk​

If that's what you're thinking and a person replaces the barbarian class with bloodhunter.

 

[Ashrym]

it would be a forced grid filling.
But if you forced me to grid fill

Full Caster	Half Caster	Non Caster
Bard	Skald	Dancer
Cleric	Paladin	Avenger
Druid	Ranger	Beastmaster
Shadowcaster	Assassin Scoundrel	Rogue
Shaman	Warden	Berserker
Sorcerer	Ragemage	Barbarian
Truenamer	????	Scholar
Warlock	Hexblade	Chosen
Wizard	Artificer	Warlord
????	Swordmage	Fighter
???	Master	Monk

It is an exercise in grid filling, yes. You seem to have made a bigger grid, though, lol.

 

[Charlaquin]

Generally I don’t think grid-filling for the sake of grid-filling leads to the best designs. But it’s still an interesting exercise. I agree with cleric -> paladin -> fighter and druid -> ranger -> barbarian, but wizard -> artificer -> rogue feels weird to me. I could see wizard -> bard -> rogue working if bards were half-casters in 5e, but since they’re full-casters, I think chart might look something like…

Full Caster	Half-Caster	Non-Caster
Bard	Arcane Trickster	Rogue
Cleric	Paladin	Fighter
Druid	Ranger	Barbarian
Sorcerer	Mystic	Monk
Warlock	Hexblade	Assassin
Wizard	Artificer	Tinker

Arcane trickster is of course a rogue subclass in 5e, but if we’re committing to this grid idea I would expand the concept into a full class with half casting (and maybe half sneak attack progression?)

Similarly, hexblade is a warlock subclass, but it has always been a weird one, and I think would be better served as a “half pact magic caster.” For the non-caster in this lineup I went with assassin despite that being another rogue subclass already. But in trying to come up with a non-magical class with a thematic link to warlocks and hexblades, I imagined a character bound in service by a non-magical “pact” to a temporal “patron”, and I realized a contract killer fit that description perfectly.

I’m using “mystic” as the name for the half-caster between Sorcerer and Monk, but I imagine it being quite different than the mystic from Unearthed Arcana. Rather than the equivalent of a full-caster in a full psionic casting-but-not-casting subsystem, I imagine this mystic as bridging the gap between sorcerer and monk through the common theme of inner power. Where the sorcerer’s innate power is purely metaphysical and the monk channels their inner power through their physical body, the mystic would use their mind as a conduit between the two. Sorcerers and monks also both use a power point system, so I imagine the Mystic would do so as well.

The tinker is just a straightforward non-magical artificer. They make cool gadgets and they don’t cast spells. Not very inspiring, but there you have it.

 

[niklinna]

Full Caster	Half-Caster	Non-Caster
Bard	Pro Arcane Trickster	Rogue
Cleric	Paladin	Warlord
Druid	Ranger	Barbarian
Warlock	n/a	Monk
Wizard/Sorcerer	Artificer	Fighter

Without redefining too many classes, I guess I'd go this way. Classes in italics are moved from your original; those in boldface are new to the table.

Arcane Trickster is already so close to what should be a half-caster rascal that I just added a "Pro".

Warlock is only a full caster in the sense that they get spells of every level; in many other respects they are half-casters, so I put n/a in the half-caster spot for that line (the table editor doesn't do spanning cells). Monks I think are similarly the odd one out of the martials.

Wizard & Sorcerer differ more in degree than kind (Wizards offering more utility/versatility), so I slapped them together, and moved Fighter into the Non-Caster spot on that line as the most general of martials (which is really what non-casters are in D&D).

In Fighter's old place I put Warlord, since it shares leadership-type stuff with Cleric & Paladin. Yeah, Warlord doesn't exist in 5E, but lots of people have wanted it.

 

[Charlaquin]

bloodhunter

Oh, my god, I forgot about them! That could totally replace “assassin” as the non-caster on the warlock row in my grid!

 

[overgeeked]

Not really. The “flow” is off. There’s no cennection between the fighter and cleric besides the paladin is a more fighty cleric. Same with the wizard to rogue, there’s no real connection between them.

Look at 4E and their roles and power sources. That will give you a better idea of what’s present and what’s missing.

You have it with the druid, ranger, barbarian flow in that they’re all nature-themed, or in the parlance of 4E have the primal power source.

It would be easier to define classes by their functions: fight, cast, or sneak. Fighter, magic-user, thief. Then define the rest as combinations of those base three. Cleric is a fighty caster while a paladin a more fighty and less caster. A ranger is a sneaky fighter while a rogue is pure sneaky. But a bard is a fighty sneaky caster.

 

[Charlaquin]

Cleric	Paladin	Warlord

Ooh, good choice on that one!