The Four (or Five) Primary Classes

[DEFCON 1]

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. The paladin isn't "necessary", because they're just a fighter/cleric multiclass.

Well, as a thought experiment I started going through the multiclass combinations, trying to determine what the "subclasses" would be. If a Fighter/Cleric was a Paladin... then what were the others? As it turns out... I ended up actually doing it twice. Once with the traditional four primary classes... then with what I thought of as the more modern "five" primary classes where we assume the Druid is/should be the primary class of the Primal "power source". Yes, I know many people like to still consider the Druid to be a Cleric subclass (and in the four primary configuration it would be)... but I for one really liked the concept introduced in 4E that there was a separation between the magic of the gods and the magic of the earth (spirits). Plus, it made some combinations seem to make more sense.

But in either event... here's what I came up with for what could have been the formulation of D&DN classes if they really were a merging of "martial exploits", "expert skills", "divine prayers", "arcane spells" (and then "primal evocations").

In the Four Primary Class set... we use singles, pairs, and triples (14 classes):

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard
Fighter/Rogue - Assassin
Fighter/Cleric - Paladin
Fighter/Wizard - Sorcerer
Rogue/Cleric - Ranger
Rogue/Wizard - Bard
Cleric/Wizard - Druid
Fighter/Rogue/Cleric - Monk
Fighter/Rogue/Wizard - Warlock
Fighter/Cleric/Wizard - Barbarian
Rogue/Cleric/Wizard - Shaman

Now because I wasn't crazy about the conceptual idea of Druids being a combination of Clerics and Wizards... here's the list with Druids being their own primary class, which I think makes more sense for them (and their subclasses.)

The Five Primary Class set... singles and pairs (15 classes):

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard
Druid
Fighter/Rogue - Assassin
Fighter/Cleric - Paladin
Fighter/Wizard - Sorcerer
Fighter/Druid - Barbarian
Rogue/Cleric - Monk
Rogue/Wizard - Bard
Rogue/Druid - Ranger
Cleric/Wizard - Invoker
Cleric/Druid - Shaman
Wizard/Druid - Warlock

*****

Do either of these lists actually mean anything? Nope. Do these ideas have any chance in actually being used in D&DNext? Not a chance. Do I expect almost anyone reading this to actually LIKE any of this? That'd be a big 'no'. But I came up with it while at work and wanted to get it off my chest. So there ya go. Mock it as you like.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Do either of these lists actually mean anything? Nope. Do these ideas have any chance in actually being used in D&DNext? Not a chance. Do I expect almost anyone reading this to actually LIKE any of this? That'd be a big 'no'. But I came up with it while at work and wanted to get it off my chest. So there ya go. Mock it as you like.

I'd hardly mock it, since all you'd have to do is go look through some of my old posts to sling it right back at me--though mine weren't identical.

In fact, I wrote not one but two versions last night, in the old "scribbling" notebook, based on some asides from a different post here yesterday.


What I have disliked most about such systems (and in fact, D&D classes in general) is the way that spell casting becomes so widespread. That's obvious when you have four or five core bits, and half or more of those bits are spell casters. You are doing well to have a handful without "magic". Tentatively, what I've come up with are these core abilities:

• 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.

That's obviously fighter, rogue, wizard, priest, druid--with the huge caveat that only if you take a wider, historical view of those last three as "wise man", priest, "nature wise man" that don't necessarily wield magic.

Then on top of those, magic become a tool you can wield, albeit one more restricted than a lot of tools. Now your combinations get more interesting, because they can have magic or use other tools instead. A bard is probably cunning/arcane--and may or may not have magic on top. A ranger is cunning/nature, and ditto on magic. A paladin is prowess/supernatural--and you guessed it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

• 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.

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...

 

[Minigiant]

I wont mock it either. I have been thinking about the same thing.

One thing that always wierded me out about D&D's core 4 was the huge gaps of possible sources of character and that so much of it was Magic. My own d20 system went with 6 in its core. If I were apply it to D&D it would be...

Trained Power- Fighter
Genetic Power- Werewolf/dragon Barbarian?
Civilization Skilled- Rogue
Nature Skilled- Ranger/Druid
Magic gained to understanding- Wizard
Magic gained through faith/focus- Sorcerer Cleric

 

[paladinm]

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.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

That is another thing that bugged me. The Subclasses aren't the same as they once were. Paladins and Rangers aren't "better fighters". So fighter isn't a base. A paladin isn't fighter/cleric like a mud monster is water/earth.

The fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard are no longer the base. The warrior is the base combat guy. The fighter is the upgraded warrior. The paladin is the upgraded warrior in another way. The ranger is the upgraded warrior in a third way.

Combat is beef. Divine is cheese. The fighter is steak. The paladin isn't a steak and cheese sandwich, it is just a different cut of beef with some cheese in the recipe. And the ranger is a third cut with a side salad.

Subclasses are less putting different parts of the sandwich to sandwich together as they whole different meals.

 

[howandwhy99]

Sometimes a subclass is just a subclass

 

[ren1999]

I think your idea is good.
The 4 main classes that should appear in the next core player's handbook should be
fighter
rogue
cleric
wizard
This core book should also be written like a beginner's box set.

Custom classes or multi-classes should be categorized according to your system in an "advanced" player's guide.
I would add..
give them hit points based on 1d12, 1d10, 1d8 and 1d6.
Then if you have a multi-class character, average these hit points. A fighter/rogue would have 11 hit points per level-up. A cleric/wizard would have 7 hit points. A fighter/wizard would have 9 hit points per level. Etc..

 

[Empath Negative]

I read on here there's actually only two "classes".

The Extraordinary Person and the Supernatural Person.

 

[NotZenon]

I think the original post is a helpful thought exercise in the sense that it helps us see how we think about the classes and what they should do.

I've had pretty similar trains of thought myself. For example i always thought of the classes as what they "Major" and "Minor" in - usually allowing a class to have either 1 major and 2 minors, or 2 majors.

ex. A ranger Majors in Fighting with minors in sneaking and druiding.
ex2. An assassin has a major in fighting with minors in sneaking and magic.

etc...

not very useful for the game but very useful for creating homebrew settings if your into that sort of thing. For example what would a ranger look like with no druid magic? better at fighting? or sneaking (backstab maybe)? or something else?