D&D 5E Conceptually Speaking...

[steeldragons]

Spawned from the Bard concept thread...got me to thinking about what the prevailing concepts are about any/all classes.

So, I'll list mine out here. Feel free to list your own, add to whatever I've said, or share some concepts of things I don't cover here. S'all good.

Naturally, so we're clear from the outset, mine is the only right and correct way to conceive the classes and play the game. But y'all are free to talk about yours here, too.

The D&D game, and to a greater extent all Fantasy genre RPGs that came after, is broken into a quartet of class structures.

The primary class categories: The Warriors. The Wizards.

The secondary "support" class categories: The Rogues. and the Priest classes.

Then the tertiary whatever various combinations thereof.

The Warriors are epitomized by the rather unoriginally and directly named, Fighter class. It's what it says on the tin. Literally, "the one who fights." They don't use magic. They do use armor and weapons, have access to any and all of them, and are "the best" at doing so. Flavor is not an issue or limiting factor and can literally be anything you want to imagine of/from all conceivable historic and fantastic cultural backgrounds.

The Barbarian and the Battlemaster is a more narrowly flavored and specifically defined Warrior with an added layer of mechanical complexity built into that flavor.

The Eldritch Knight (potentially some Paladins or Rangers) is another more narrowly flavored and specifically defined Warrior with a different additional layer of mechanical complexity built (magic/spells) into that flavor.

The Wizards are epitomized by what I settle on (as they were termed in 2e, and basically because it's shortest/simplest to type) "the Mage." Formerly the -again somewhat unoriginal but very direct- "Magic-user" and carried throughout the games history to exist today as "the Wizard." Basically, the guy with the magic. Studies and uses their spellbook to work magical energies, sorcery, witchcraft, "Arcane" or "occult" powers of whatever fantastic description/explanation you like. If you want to track minutia of component materials, what is verbal or somatic or just some rhymey incantation, Rowling-latiny sounding nonsense, some detailed specific language of magic, or simple internal concentration and pointing, are all really just matters of dressing and personal flavor preferences. The Mage, however their spellcasting is flavored/described, is the best there is at using magic.

The Sorcerer is a more narrowly flavored and specifically defined Wizard with an added layer of mechanical complexity built into that flavor.

The Warlock is another more narrowly flavored and specifically defined Wizard with a different additional layer of mechanical complexity built into that flavor. Some variations of which might also play/"feel" more akin to a Rogue or Priest class.

The Rogues are epitomized by "the Thief." They are the skill-monkey. A non-magical "expert" who has tricks and tips for getting things done, generally without/around direct combat. They use some weapons. They use some armor. But, again, the use of weapons and armor is not the primary function of this support class. They're there to scout, to stealth, to notice/avoid the traps, pick the locks, climb the walls and listen at the doors, possibly to interact/deceive/persuade/haggle/fast talk their way -likely "into" as much trouble as "out of"... They are the best there is at using -again non-primarily combat and non-primarily magic- skills.

The Assassin is a more narrowly flavored and specifically defined Rogue with an added layer of mechanical complexity built into that flavor.

The Arcane Trickster, potentially Rangers, and certain Bards are other more narrowly flavored and specifically defined Rogues with different additional layers of mechanical complexity built (magic/spells) into that flavor.

The Priests are epitomized by "The Cleric." This possibly might be better termed as "the gish" since their crux is the use of some arms/armor and the use of magic. They are there to support...Need a little extra help on the front line? Call a priest. Need some magical back up? Call a priest. Fill in the gaps with some (mostly interactive) skills? Call a priest. Yes, they ave some weapons and some armor. Yes they have some magic, some even different from the mage's flashy big bang stuff. They are the "fill in the gap" classes, and their initial incarnation, and still most potent and diverse, is the Cleric.

The Druid is a more narrowly flavored and specifically defined Priest with an added layer of mechanical complexity built into that flavor.

The Paladin, the Ranger, the Bard, and Monk are all the MOST narrowly flavored and specifically defined classes because they have the most diverse abilities: mixtures of elements of Warriors & Wizards, Priests & Rogues, Priests and Warriors, Warriors & Rogues, three together or all four combined, etc...etc... with different additional layers of mechanical complexity built (channeling/spells/inspiration/ki) into that flavor. These are the "tertiary" combo classes.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Naturally, so we're clear from the outset, mine is the only right and correct way to conceive the classes and play the game. But y'all are free to talk about yours here, too.

Of course mine is, and I'm glad we've brought it up so we can get on the same page to start. ;-)

Barbarian: Fairly unsophisticated muscle bound warrior. It can be stone age tribal, Viking Berserker, or Conan, but they use Strength and hit things hard with big weapons.

Bard: An often roguish wielder of musical arcane magic. Often somewhat akin to a high-powered super minstrel, but can also be a wizardish sort of loremaster.

Cleric: Clerics are priests and priests are clerics. They man the churches and temples. They use divine spells. Non casters are not priests of real religions, they are deceived cultists, charlatans, or posers. Clerics are not specifically "warrior priests" they are all priests. (Note that while no version of the PHB has agreed with my definition, pretty much every edition's (with the probable exception of 4e) printed settings and NPCs have followed basically exactly what I just described. Don't believe me? Grab an adventure or campaign setting and start looking for NPC priests. (I'm also including 2e specialty priests and some druids as "clerics" here.) So you can believe what D&D says, or believe what they do. I prefer believing what they do, because I like the idea that divine power is ubiquitous amongst the clergy, not something some crazy maverick adventures run around with in contrast to the actual leaders of the religion.)

Druid: Druids are nature oriented priests who use divine (or naturey) spells. They are priests of an "Old Faith" sort of feel. Some of them can be more like nature mages than actual priests, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Shapeshifting and/or animal companions is something they can do, but isn't their defining trait. The best dressed druids wear robes and carry staves (just greener robes and gnarlier staves than wizards).

Fighter: Fighters are the preeminent non-magical warriors. They win because they are just that good. They should outfight anyone else in a fair fight. It's fine for some fighters to dabble in other things, but the primary element of the class is mundane combat skills that rock. They are the elite version of your typical warrior or soldier encountered in the world.

Monk: Monks are east Asian themed ki-channeling martial artists. The name "monk" is a misnomer as most people who would be called monks (whether European or Asian themed setting) would be clerics or something else similar. This class is not a mechanical chassis to throw any unarmed warrior on, and ki cannot be refluffed into grit and gumption. It is a spiritual force that empowers your combat skills and you gain from training under some probably annoying master.

Paladin: Paladins are holy warriors of good and right. They cast divine spells eventually. They fight in heavy armor and wield weapons that use Strength--preferably longswords/bastard swords but they can get away with axes and hammers and others in a pinch. They don't waste time with ranged weapons or cowardly polearms.

Ranger: Rangers are magically attuned nature warriors. They are to druids what paladins are to clerics. They tend to avoid heavy armor, but that isn't an absolute. They fight in melee or ranged, and they eventually cast divine/naturey spells. Animal companions are a common, but not required, option. They are not equivalent to squishy rogues, nature or otherwise, in any way. They have d10 HD just like fighters and paladins and can dish out and take punishment in a fair front line fight.

Rogue: Rogues are criminals or those with similar skill sets (including tomb robbing adventuring types). They sneak around, open locks, and fight dirty. Of course, some of them focus more on social elements than physical elements, but they all have some of the basic thief-like abilities. Assassins are rogues with extra deadly combat capabilities, and maybe even some magic (I'm not a fan of the 5e assassin's "spy" rather than "hit man" focus.)

Sorcerer: Sorcerers are arcane casters like wizards, but their magic is inherited and they use it with force of personality rather than intellect. They are one of the least defined concepts, though they theoretically have potential.

Warlock: Warlocks are arcane casters who take shortcuts to power, stumble into it, or have it thrust upon them.

Wizard: Wizards are the pre-eminant arcane casters by which all others are judged. They are the masters of magic, who use intelligence and study to master vast numbers of spells, and are the most likely to create new spells and magic items. They are the squishiest characters of all, and tend to avoid melee combat.

And that's the way it is.