Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amrûnril" data-source="post: 9014188" data-attributes="member: 6841183">If you want to consolidate classes based on how they're designed in the current game, I'd argue the logical breakdown is Warrior (classes with extra attack), Mage (classes with full spellcasting progression), and Rogue (classes with sneak attack). Grouping other classes with Rogue obscures where those classes' combat power actually comes from and overemphasizes flavor/skill selection factors that are only loosely tied to class. As for Clerics, they follow the same underlying power progression structure as arcane casters, even if their exact spells are different. There also isn't a clear dividing line if you want to separate them. The Bard's focus on healing and support lets it bridge the gap between traditionally Arcane and Divine magic, and while the Druid has historically been associated with the Cleric, I'd argue the modern incarnation has more in common with the Sorcerer. More broadly, I think that Warrior vs. Mage is a widespread and intuitive archetype distinction in fantasy media, while Mage vs. Cleric is a more idiosyncratic D&Dism. It's worth representing in the current 12 class system, but I'm not convinced it should be a defining factor in a system with only 4 classes or class groups.</blockquote>