The Four (or Five) Primary Classes

I like how you think. I think that they should only have 4 classes and then multi-class plus feats/talents to make others.

Multi-classing doesn't work in all cases though. Some classes from previous editions should be variations of one the big 4

Warlord, Barbarian - a fighter Variant
Sorcerer or Warlock - a wizard variant
While the Assassin could be a Rogue/Fighter it could just be a Rogue variant as well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think it's more to do with "multisysteming" than multiclassing. Each class could include some generic systems as well as unique material. What I mean is:

If someone wants to be a ranger, you can't just say "okay, take 3 levels of Nature Guy, 5 levels of Combat Guy, and 1 level of Sneaky Guy." Rather, you should have ranger as a separate class, and say "the ranger can do combat stuff, some nature stuff, and sometimes a little bit of sneaky stuff, and all this unique Ranger stuff," and then go on to describe what the Ranger stuff is.

So a Paladin isn't just a Fighter/Cleric; he's a separate class that can do combat stuff, some divine stuff, and has some unique Paladin stuff.

Moreover, the Fighter's class features shouldn't be just the basic combat stuff. He should be a unique class that can do combat stuff, and has some unique Fighter stuff.
 
Last edited:


Let me just say up front, that my premise in this post is faulty right off the top. I know this. D&D has the "big 4" classes... Fighter, Rogue (or Thief), Cleric, and Wizard. And the theory has always been for some people (obviously not even close to all) that other classes weren't "necessary", because they were just a merge/multiclass of two of these primary classes.
It's not that I don't think they are "necessary." I just think that their importance is greatly overstated, that's all. The game will still be D&D whether we have one or a dozen flavors of "mage with a sword."
 

  • Prowess - martial, athletic, endurance
  • Cunning - trickery, stealth
  • Arcane - strange lore -- not necessarily spells or even "magical"
  • Supernatural - power from the gods, not necessarily spells
  • Nature - animals, plants, etc.
  • Society - leadership, minions (added by me)
Prowess - Fighter
Cunning - Rogue
Arcane - Wizard
Supernatural - Cleric
Nature - Druid
Society - Bard
Prowess/Cunning - Ranger, Samurai
Prowess/Nature - Beastmaster, Barbarian
Prowess/Arcane - Swordmage
Prowess/Supernatural - Monk, Paladin
Prowess/Society - Warlord
Cunning/Arcane - Assassin, Psion
Cunning/Nature - Explorer
Cunning/Society - Spy
Arcane/Supernatural - Warlock
Arcane/Nature - Sorcerer
 

Just a couple thoughts..

1. A sorcerer is Not a fighter/wizard.. s/he is just an alternative wizard.

2. A ranger has always been a fighter at core, not a rogue, even if s/he has (some) rogue-ish skills.

3. A warlock is more of a rogue/wizard, IMHO

Each class/subclass has one of the 4 /5 "core" classes as its basis, then other "features" are tacked on. At least that's how the "subclasses" were originallly designed.. that's why they were "sub"classes.

1. That's true... but since Sorcerer was one of the "first PH" classes and Swordmage wasn't... I just decided to slide Sorcerer into what would have been the Swordmage slot (especially considering I like the name Sorcerer more than Swordmage.) But it actually makes a little bit of sense... because the Sorcerer is all about personal, internal power and magic, just like how fighting skill is personal, internal, power and martial ability. So the Sorcerer being the F/W combination isn't as outrageous as it might originally seem.

2. Swapping the placement of Ranger and Monk is easily done and causes no issue (so that Monk was rogue/cleric and Ranger was fighter/rogue/cleric) if it really mattered. My first list only had them the opposite way because I tried to keep the idea of the "more classically core" classes in the paired combos, rather than the triple combos.

3. Same reasoning as 2... kept Bard in the paired combo section and had warlock in the triple combo. But you could easily swap warlock into rogue/wizard and bard into fighter/rogue/wizard if you wanted. Both work either way.
 

The thing I immediately thought off when I saw what you had written (really cool divergence off of what I came up with by the way)... was that your five precepts also matched up fairly nicely to the five of the six ability scores. Prowess was Strength, Cunning was Dexterity, Nature (or "life") was Constitution, Arcane was Intelligence, and Supernatural was Wisdom. All you'd need after that was Presence for Charisma (perhaps with a psionics bent on the "magic" end) and you basically cover all six abilities each with their own source. Interesting to think about...

I'll just note that having provoked that reaction from several people, I've failed a little in my intent. I was deliberately going for things that aren't so tied to ability scores--the idea being that "prowess" implies certainly some strong physical strength, dexterity, and constitution, and isn't entirely unhelped by a touch of intelligence, wisdom, or charisma, either. Cunning is as much about fooling people as knowing what to do or how to do it. Arcane is about knowing strange stuff--whether used by Dex to mix odd potions or Con to withstand the terrible pull of some body draining process or Int to puzzle out how to make it work. And so forth. Sometimes the very last thing about dealing with the supernatural will be "wisdom"--albeit that will be more true of evil cultists of some alien power than the PCs. :D

You might think of these as more replacement power sources (in the 4E sense) than anything else. That's not exactly right, either, though. Thus calling them "idioms".

With idioms, look at the three "pillars", combat, exploration, and interaction, and ask how a character built on that idiom is going to handle it. A character built primarily on prowess faced with an interaction challenge might use intimidate (almost brute force, sort of based on Str) but might also, in some contexts, resort to taking the princess out on the dance floor. He is no great talker, but he "sweeps her off her feet" with his grace and poise.

If I had done a better job at teasing out my meaning, then the idioms would have more obviously and naturally crossed pillars and ability scores, instead of prompting the reaction I got. That said, this is all brainstorming. So don't let the above discourage you from running with it anywhere you want. My idea was not the intention of the several people who prompted it, either. :D

But I did want to state this in case anyone had some thoughts on running with it the way I originally intended, too.
 

A different point of view is that Divine is not a base class, but just a style.

Base are:
Prowess: those who fight, are tough, and like to melee.
Cunning: those who rely on skills, mobility, ranged or stealth, becouse they are fragile.
Magic: those who rely on powers, or spells.

Divine is just a flavor. A divine prowess can be a Paladin, a Divine Cunning can be a Zealot (or maybe a Monk), a Divine Magic can be a Priest or Cleric. On the other hand, an Arcane Prowess can be an Eldritch Knight, an Arcane Cunning can be a Spellblade (or an Illusionist??), and an Arcane Magic can be a Wizard or Sorcerer. If you go Nature, they can be Barbarian, Ranger, Druid, if you go Martial they can be Fighter, Rogue, Tactician (??), and if your flavor is demonic power, they can be Hellknight, Nightblade, Warlock.
 

I'll just note that having provoked that reaction from several people, I've failed a little in my intent. I was deliberately going for things that aren't so tied to ability scores--the idea being that "prowess" implies certainly some strong physical strength, dexterity, and constitution, and isn't entirely unhelped by a touch of intelligence, wisdom, or charisma, either. Cunning is as much about fooling people as knowing what to do or how to do it. Arcane is about knowing strange stuff--whether used by Dex to mix odd potions or Con to withstand the terrible pull of some body draining process or Int to puzzle out how to make it work. And so forth. Sometimes the very last thing about dealing with the supernatural will be "wisdom"--albeit that will be more true of evil cultists of some alien power than the PCs. :D

You might think of these as more replacement power sources (in the 4E sense) than anything else. That's not exactly right, either, though. Thus calling them "idioms".

With idioms, look at the three "pillars", combat, exploration, and interaction, and ask how a character built on that idiom is going to handle it. A character built primarily on prowess faced with an interaction challenge might use intimidate (almost brute force, sort of based on Str) but might also, in some contexts, resort to taking the princess out on the dance floor. He is no great talker, but he "sweeps her off her feet" with his grace and poise.

If I had done a better job at teasing out my meaning, then the idioms would have more obviously and naturally crossed pillars and ability scores, instead of prompting the reaction I got. That said, this is all brainstorming. So don't let the above discourage you from running with it anywhere you want. My idea was not the intention of the several people who prompted it, either. :D

But I did want to state this in case anyone had some thoughts on running with it the way I originally intended, too.

Oh what you were saying is the "idioms" represent the various approaches to an obstacle.

Prowess- A direct mundane approach (Mr. Prowess smashes through/jumps over the rock)

Cunning- An indirect mundane approach (Mr Cunning turns around, takes another path, and walks around the rock)

Arcane- warping reality with strange powers to overcome (Mr Arcane says something and the rock disappears)

Divine- Using the power of a stronger being (Mr Divine calls an agel and the angel lifts him over the rock)

Nature- Using the power of nature (Mr Nature says something and the rock gets up and moves out the way)
 


Remove ads

Top