Ok...Well, I anticipated some of this...er, stuff...So I'll try to take it on one issue at a time. DAMN y'all are some whiny baetches. hahaha.
FIRST, I will say (in hopes of quenching a few fires) that the diagram is not established to relate to mechanics or access to all class abilities and powers. The fact that the Ranger is not near the druid has no baring on whether or not you could give you Ranger some druidic magic.
To quote myself:
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.
So your Rangers, even though, yes, on the diagram they're alllll the way on the other side, could still be a druid magic caster, or a beastmaster or have some arcane spells or be a warrior who tracks, or a rogue who wears chainmail, or a bow-specialized scout or a battle-axe swinging unparalleled slayer of things big and bad...or a bunch of other things.
They are, primarily, first, foremost, undeniably, and I argue moreso than other class types here presented, a class that conquers the tribulations of adventuring as a Warrior (weapons, toughness) and Rogue (skills and trickery) in equal measure. Whatever specific abilities they have or however detailed or mechanically tweaked out those things are is not something this diagram is designed to relay.
This kind of thinking goes for everything on the diagram, not just the Ranger.
Ahh. But that what they basically are. "Priest of (god of) Magic" would fit in your "druid" space much better, something like "swashbuckler" would fit in your ranger space better.
I am starting to see some smoke and sparks coming from the jewel.
Then I suggest you take the tinfoil out of the microwave.
A "Priest of [a god of] Magic" would be likely a Cleric under the big, broad, Priest block. I could see the case, in a god of Magic's case, for an order of Thaumaturgists equally well. No reason they would go in the archetypal space of the Druid. They are a Priest...of a God...what that is a god of does not change the "
How they do adventuring" of the Cleric class.
It is interesting to note that Swashbuckler was in the bidding for a space for a while, but while I certainly agree it is a mixed Warrior/Rogue, it is not in my view the perfect mix of the Warrior/Rogue. Let me explain.
Again, looking at the definitions and reasoning behind my placements for what goes where and why, a Swashbuckler, for all of their jumping and flipping and chandelier swinging antics is, foremost, a Warrior with some [likely nautical] skills. They tackle adventuring through the use of their weapons, possibly with a secondary Charisma/persuation/interactions thing going on. But they are going to pull out their rapier (or cutlass) and dirk and go to town.
Reading through how I classified things, the Swashbuckler fits more into the space of Warlords and Acrobats. Any Fighter or Thief or Assassin or Bard or, for that matter, Warlord or Acrobat dressed up in light armor with a light/simple blade and high Dex. could be made/played as a
Swashbuckler. SO, I'll grant they're a large enough
type to be included but they are not, necessarily, an
archetype sufficient to occupy the full 2nd tier "corner spot" of the Ranger.
Ok, I has some questions on your tier 3 and 4.
Fire away.
The Oracle, as Pathfinder presents it, is a sorcerer version of the cleric. Not sure how it matches the priest/rogue spectrum.
It sits where it is, rather contained by the Priestly quandrant. As explained in the long post at the beginning:
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.
-snip-
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.
So, in that vein, it isn't really there to fit the priest/rogue spectrum so much as a neat place to put them within the "center" of Priest/Cleric-land.
The Mystic class is too vague. There have been three mystics in D&D; a Basic Class which was the monk, a 2e class which was a kinda witch-priest, and a 3e class which was a sorcerer version of the cleric. None of them scream "battle caster". CRUSADER might fill that niche though.
As I mentioned in an earlier response, the was the toughest block to label...Crusader is good...I am almost inclined to change it. However, the problem there becomes, I can see Paladins, Clerics and Cavaliers (all very easily) being Crusaders...warlords and fighters as well...I think Crusader might be another little "type" [a la warlord, oracle, et. al.]. It is a tough nut this "Priestly/enlightened character with some Warrior training but more/closer to a priest than a warrior." But, as the jewel is built around the Block ---> block model...a "Cleric leaning toward Fighter" to balance the "Fighter leaning toward Cleric" are both needed...Actually, put like that, Crusader again sounds like a better option.
I think Witch is probably in a better place where the thaumatgist is. Most of the witch classes I saw were a mix of arcane enchantments/necromancy and divine healing/divination. I'd put the evoker (a mage focusing on battle magic) or the sorcerer in where the witch is now.
See above re: Oracle/those 4th tier "types."
Evoker, like Swashbuckler, was on the board for a time...and certainly makes sense where you propose. Witch is more where it was, though it does work in terms of my explanation and I stand by that, but it was a bit of a shoehorn.
Witch, initially was floating somewhere between Mage and Druid (to insinuate the healing/divination you mention)...but then I thought of all of the various types of characters that could be made/played as a "Witch" and it became the Wizard's "called out type" that works with just about everything else in that quadrant. Thus, you can make a Druid-ish Witch as easily as you can make a "faye-illusionist witch." So...yeah, that's why it's there where it is.
more to come...and thanks to everyone for the comments, even those disagreeing!
