Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EUREKA! THE ULTIMATE CROWN JEWEL OF CLASS ARCHTYPES!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6203070" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>To quote myself:</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>This kind of thinking goes for everything on the diagram, not just the Ranger.</p><p></p><p>Then I suggest you take the tinfoil out of the microwave. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p>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 "<strong><em>How they do</em></strong> <strong><em>adventuring"</em></strong> of the Cleric class. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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<em> Swashbuckler.</em> SO, I'll grant they're a large enough <em>type</em> to be included but they are not, necessarily, an <em>arche</em>type sufficient to occupy the full 2nd tier "corner spot" of the Ranger. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Fire away. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>It sits where it is, rather contained by the Priestly quandrant. As explained in the long post at the beginning:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>See above re: Oracle/those 4th tier "types."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>more to come...and thanks to everyone for the comments, even those disagreeing!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6203070, member: 92511"] 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: 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. Then I suggest you take the tinfoil out of the microwave. :D 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 "[B][I]How they do[/I][/B] [B][I]adventuring"[/I][/B] 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[I] Swashbuckler.[/I] SO, I'll grant they're a large enough [I]type[/I] to be included but they are not, necessarily, an [I]arche[/I]type sufficient to occupy the full 2nd tier "corner spot" of the Ranger. Fire away. :) It sits where it is, rather contained by the Priestly quandrant. As explained in the long post at the beginning: 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. 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. 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! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EUREKA! THE ULTIMATE CROWN JEWEL OF CLASS ARCHTYPES!!!
Top