D&D General class consept question?

[Cap'n Kobold]

is there logically room for a full caster in the primary support model which is not religious and does not have the same setting disruptions that dm level against artificers?

Yes, but I think we're not going to find one until we have a better idea of what you find acceptable.
No clerics or religious characters I can understand, but you seem to have houserules making Warlocks and Paladins be the same as clerics, which is confusing most of us.

You don't understand Bards, and you just plain don't like Sorcerors.

I think before we're going to get any further, we're going to need a better idea of what sources of magic you find acceptable, and which classes your group allows access to that source, since they seem to have unusual houserules and be extremely resistant to reskinning.

So: Rather than us come up with ideas that fall afoul of your preferences and table rules, lets try starting with what is allowed in the first place and working from there.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yes, but I think we're not going to find one until we have a better idea of what you find acceptable.
No clerics or religious characters I can understand, but you seem to have houserules making Warlocks and Paladins be the same as clerics, which is confusing most of us.

You don't understand Bards, and you just plain don't like Sorcerors.

I think before we're going to get any further, we're going to need a better idea of what sources of magic you find acceptable, and which classes your group allows access to that source, since they seem to have unusual houserules and be extremely resistant to reskinning.

So: Rather than us come up with ideas that fall afoul of your preferences and table rules, lets try starting with what is allowed in the first place and working from there.

not house rules observation, for four editions and the spin-offs paladins served the gods the oaths make sense if they are terms they must abide by.
warlocks are just clerics for lesser powers is not homebrew just me being angry at how oddly religion is done in this game.

look if some could tell me where the bard idea came from I could figure it out, I do not hate sorcerers mechanically aside from them being subpar, I hate them thematically but I would not stop others playing them or be mean to their players as that is also wrong.

I do not ban things just look to see if I was right about a gap being there that could be filled first then see if what would fit.

 

[steeldragons]

So, you've said it several times, and I presumed someone would have gotten to this by now, but they haven't. Barring that, I would have thought a simple Google search on the word would tell you what you need to know. Again, apparently not. So, here. You're welcome...

Bards are from ancient Celtic history & mythology: Irish, Welsh, Scottish, some from the Gaulish (old France/northwestern Europe). The most famous, generally cited, is a guy named Amergin. Another somewhat famous example, often conflated with stories/legends of the wizard of Arthurian myth, Merlin [I certainly hope you've "heard of him/know where he comes from?"], is a great magician/historian/druid, Taliesin.

They were historians/chroniclers, learned men, knowledgeable in all matters of lore and the laws of the men and lands among whom they lived. They served as diplomats/emissaries, judges, talented orators/speech givers, heralds and advisors of their kings, and initiated magician-priests, and, yes, inspirational warriors and/or battle-leaders/warlords of their peoples. They use wit, knowledge, and magic. Powers -as they usually do in Celtic legend- are closely tied to the natural world -calming seas, creating mists, calling forth the winds or plants to grow, and the like- and a smattering of transformation -altering one's appearance, turning into animals, etc... They are capable warriors, as all able-bodied people among these cultures are, but rely moreso on wit, often with cunning/trickery, and their supernatural abilities born of their abundant knowledge, years of training, and sometimes (as with all myth) some supernatural/semi-divine origin. Playing the harp is fairly ubiquitous (for celtic culture) -as it was a magical skill available only to the most learned and gifted (talented) of men.

A learned wandering guy with musical talent and a little knowledge about just about everything is merged in D&D (since 1e) with the medieval trope of the "wandering minstrel/troubador." So, the "magical musician" bard with a mandolin or lap harp, as a stringed instrument is almost always noted as a medeival instrument/music. This has burgeoned out to include pretty much any and all myth that includes music/instruments of all kinds: reeds/flutes/pipes (a la "Pan Pipes," the Pied Piper), percussion (a la shamanic drum circles), and brass/horns (the trumpets that fell the walls of Jericho from the Bible) trope of D&D was born and has solidified (not necessarily for the better, imho) over the editions. They are further mingled and broadened over editions with Scadanavian legend/culture of individuals known as "skalds."

Google Amergin and Taliesin..They will tell you everything you need to know about what a bard is supposed to be. More broadly, Irish and Welsh mythology/legends/ancient history.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

not house rules observation, for four editions and the spin-offs paladins served the gods the oaths make sense if they are terms they must abide by.

5e, they don't. A Paladin can swear their oath to their ruler, or their ancesters, or the souls of their fallen brethen. No worship or god required.

warlocks are just clerics for lesser powers is not homebrew just me being angry at how oddly religion is done in this game.

Warlocks aren't anything like clerics thematically. Warlock's power can be a one-off gift, or stealing or reward for a service rendered. No worship or even future serving the patron is required.

look if some could tell me where the bard idea came from I could figure it out,

AFAIK originally celtic law- and lore-keepers - The original druids (as opposed to the D&D druids also inspired by the same people.) Where writing isn't as widespread, those who can use it were often ascribed mystical powers, and chants and songs are a common way to retain information.
Also picked up some baggage from the "travelling minstrel/troubadour" archetype of ye olde fantasie medievale periodde.
The thing to remember is that bards don't actually need to play an instrument to use their abilities, and that any thing from the bells in the abhorsen novels, to aboriginal bullroarers, to military signal whistles can count as as a musical instrument.

I do not hate sorcerers mechanically aside from them being subpar, I hate them thematically but I would not stop others playing them or be mean to their players as that is also wrong.

I mean a sorceror can be as simple as "wizard who keeps their spells in their mind, not a book". A Divine Soul can be a classic "white mage" without needing to follow a got or other power. I find it hard to actually nail down the thematics of a sorceror enough to find something to dislike.

I do not ban things just look to see if I was right about a gap being there that could be filled first then see if what would fit.

No, but since you have reasons to not like things that we don't know about, it may be easier to start from what is allowed. You have a lot of opinions about classes that are outside of the actual rules for them, so easier to work from the things that you are OK with since that is a smaller group.

Edit: Steeldragons explained much better about Bards while I was writing my post. Use theirs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

all divine magic is bargain magic with powerful beings

That's not really true, or at least it hasn't been for at least two editions (3e and 5e; 4e was, as usual, Different™).

Divine magic in 3rd and 5th edition is magic that comes from commitment to...something. But there needn't be any "person" or even "cosmic force" on the other end. Divine magic can literally just be "I think Joy and Hope are so bloody important that I can literally make miracles happen because of those thoughts." Where the Wizard (and other "arcane" magic users) in some sense trick or force reality to do as they will, the divine magic-user instead basically just has such absolute, ironclad conviction that reality just goes along with it (up to a certain point.)

Now, it is often easier to access this sort of thing through a powerful divine entity, such as a deity, or a potent cosmic force, such as the Light from the WoW setting, or the Force from Star Wars. But at least 3e and 5e both explicitly allow you to have divine magic come from some other thing instead.

4e, as noted, did not do this--but that's because (a) the general function, aka Role, provided by Clerics was explicitly also provided by many other classes with no divine flavor at all (Warlord, Bard, Ardent, Artificer, and Shaman depending on how you view the Primal Spirits stuff), and (b) they actually gave a reason why the Divine power source works this way in-story....and that reason happens to NOT actually require faith, believe it or not. So, in one sense, your question is answered for 4e by saying "sure, there are at least four other classes that do what you want and have nothing to do with any particular belief." In another sense, the answer is, "they gave a reason, and that reason ALSO doesn't actually require what you're talking about." (Specifically, the Divine power source comes from having received Investiture from a being capable of doing so--usually a god, but sometimes other things--but that transfer of power is pretty much permanent, so it's entirely possible for a deity to give Investiture to someone that DOESN'T believe in them, and likewise, possible for someone to lose faith and leave without having their powers taken away).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s fundamentally the same thing Wizards do. Manipulating the weave with sounds and gestures. They just produce the sounds with musical instruments instead of their vocal folds (or in some cases they do use their vocal folds).

As a side note...I absolutely loathe this. You explained it well, but it is fundamentally why I like Bards less and less with each edition. Which sucks, because they’re actually mechanically good in 4e and 5e.

But to me, they’re just not Bards, at all. The whole “Jack of all trades” thing would be better off in the Rogue, and the Spellcasting that is just “normal arcane magic, but with a lute” is completely unusable, to me.

To me, if the Bard isn’t the poet and singer of mythology, whose voice can becalm beasts and possess mortals and enamor gods, whose words are both feared and coveted, then why include the class?

The bard can’t even curse people? They can’t change someone’s luck? They can’t turn nature against someone? They can’t tell the dead to live again and have it happen?

So why are they a class!?

 

[Leatherhead]

It sounds like you are looking for the Archivist. Which was basically just a wizard who used the cleric spell list (plus some extras, maybe). But, as other's have already pointed out, there are a slew of casters who already get access to those spell lists without having to be "divine." So it isn't exactly an unfilled niche.

I too agree that warlocks and clerics are a bit too close now thematically (and I believe sorcerers and warlocks should be merged into a more generic mage class), but I would like to point out that clerics do have something interesting going for them even now: A character can be forced to become a cleric. The player, of course, isn't being forced. But the character could start on the path of a cleric by having the god in question come down and basically press gang the character into service. A situation which turns the whole question of faith on it's head.

 

[dave2008]

have we ever had something like a cleric or druid but not based on religion or inherent spirituality?

I know we have bards and artificers but the latter are not necessarily an option on all worlds and the former just confuses me on how it even works.

any ideas?

Yes, but from what I have read, you just don't like any of the answers or don't understand them. Only you can know what you like, best just to re-fluff the magic of an existing class. If you understand what Wizards are, just say a Cleric is a Wizard that learned a to cast different magic, well differently. Now you have a healer with the full power of a Cleric and no need for religion or inherent spirituality.

 

[TwoSix]

but what makes the oath work? it bugs me metaphysically.

If you're looking for an arrangement of classes that has a different metaphysical background than standard D&D, that's also fully coherent with itself and doesn't require reskinning, you're into deep, deep homebrew territory or just another system entirely.

Since you seem to have deeper cosmological concerns and trope consistency concerns, you're better off defining the cosmology you want to use first, and then start making classes to fit into that cosmology.

 

[Charlaquin]

As a side note...I absolutely loathe this. You explained it well, but it is fundamentally why I like Bards less and less with each edition. Which sucks, because they’re actually mechanically good in 4e and 5e.

But to me, they’re just not Bards, at all. The whole “Jack of all trades” thing would be better off in the Rogue, and the Spellcasting that is just “normal arcane magic, but with a lute” is completely unusable, to me.

To me, if the Bard isn’t the poet and singer of mythology, whose voice can becalm beasts and possess mortals and enamor gods, whose words are both feared and coveted, then why include the class?

The bard can’t even curse people? They can’t change someone’s luck? They can’t turn nature against someone? They can’t tell the dead to live again and have it happen?

So why are they a class!?

I agree!