NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6173623" data-attributes="member: 92511">Well yeah that seems to have a lot of people up in arms. From an organizational standpoint, I see no reason this would be the case (that fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger be considered "separate" and mages all one).Also, with the exception of "psion", I don't really consider wizard/sorcerer/warlock to be "wildly different archetypes. Certainly not the wizard and sorcerer, maybe moreso the warlock. But the bottom line, in D&D terms, is that all use "magic spells" or, more specifically "Arcane magic." Their highly revered/defended "differences" are simply [easily mutable] fluff and the "magic system/spell mechanics". They are names applied (classes created) to various ways to "cast spells", mechanical distinctions wit ha candy-coating of fluffy-goodness. Sorcerer sez: "I gots magic in me blood...from this kind of creature." Warlock sez "I gots blood in me magic!...from this kinda creature." That's what they are....and as I've said elsewhere...though it's not a great "fit", where else is Psion going to go? Between Priest, Rogue, Fighter, Mage...putting Psion under Mage makes the most sense. Otherwise you have what happened in the 1e PHB and every edition since..."Here's the BIG 4 [and classes associated with them]...oh, and psionics." And again, they're really just different "casting" mechanic with a fluffy candy coating of "These are psychic powers not 'magic/spells'."  This was a tough call for my hypothetical system up top. The other option tugging at me was to put Monk under Warriors and move Paladin under Priests. But at the end of the day, I think it makes more sense as I did it.1) There is the tradition/history of the Paladin as a Fighter subclass.2) Going back to BECM, the monk-type of class was even called the "mystic" and really did a better job (better name) for the idea of the meditative martial artist we think of/associate with a D&D "monk", which has always had that "weird mental/cleric-like" powers like talking to plants and healing yourself.3) You have the occidental application of the word "monk" which is, distinctly, a religious title/member of a religious order...so that lends to the "put them with priests" argumentand 4) In the initial idea to build up this construction/organization, the aim was to keep things somewhat symmetrical. Since Wizards have 8 possible specialist schools, I wanted to say that Fighters would have 8 specialist types too, Thieves 8 specialists types, etc... Since there were 3 identified "subclasses" of Mage, I wanted 3 identified "subclasses" of Warrior...with Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger, those 3 are already used up. Then 2 each beyond Thief and Cleric. Druid, obviously, was the no brainer...and in keeping wth the "all classes from a 1st PHB" mantra, that left the monk out in the cold...and then, like a sunbeam from on high, there is an open slot under the Priest classes just waiting for the Monk. I think it's a perfect fit and makes more sense -again for my hypothetical set-up that I just made up here myself- thematically and legacy-wise to associate it as a Priest than Warrior class. They would not have access to divine spells, though I suppose one could make the argument that they could be added. But they would be more "unarmored fightery" than a Cleric or Druid, keeping the spiritual context.    Now, in a game like 4e, where things are organized by "power source" and you wanted to say the defining feature of "Priest classes" is their access to/use of Divine energies, then I suppose you'd have to swap Paladin and Monk. But then, I'd swap out Druid also since I don't consider the Druid magic/powers as "Divine energies"...and you can see the big mess that would just snowball from there. I think keeping Monk and Paladin where I placed them works best (from an organizational standpoint) and makes the most sense (from a thematic stadpoint).And so, I have alleviated that perplexed state for you by organizing the classes all within their group umbrellas! Right?! Right?! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />They are ALL distinct classes. They're just listed like this for elegance and simplicity. Your character sheet doesn't need to say "Mage-Wizardry" any more than it has to say "Warrior-Paladinic Training." Put Wizard on your character sheet. Put Psion instead of "Mage-psionics." All of this "warlocks/sorcerers/psions are Mages but Rangers and Barbarians are their own thing" tempest seems to me a bit..."hollow", I suppose is the best phrase. I reeeeally severely doubt it will be like that.A Ranger is a archetype/style of someone who uses combat/weapons to solve their adventuring problems, a fighting man. It is a Warrior. It does what a Warrior does and has these other tricks/skills/abilities associated with it. A Sorcerer is an archetype/style of someone who uses weird/forbidden/unknown/arcane lore and "magics" to solve their adventuring problems, an arcane magic-user. It is a Mage. It does what Mages do and has these other tricks/skills/abilities associated with it.  They're the same thing. Everybody's getting their own page(s) to describe them and what they do and how to expand/vary them if you want.</blockquote>

Verification