Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5867093" data-attributes="member: 7006">Let me just say up front, that my premise in this post is faulty right off the top.&nbsp; I know this.&nbsp; D&amp;D has the &quot;big 4&quot; classes... Fighter, Rogue (or Thief), Cleric, and Wizard.&nbsp; And the theory has always been for some people (obviously not even close to all) that other classes weren't &quot;necessary&quot;, because they were just a merge/multiclass of two of these primary classes.&nbsp; The paladin isn't &quot;necessary&quot;, 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 &quot;subclasses&quot; would be.&nbsp; If a Fighter/Cleric was a Paladin... then what were the others?&nbsp; As it turns out... I ended up actually doing it twice.&nbsp; Once with the traditional four primary classes... then with what I thought of as the more modern &quot;five&quot; primary classes where we assume the Druid is/should be the primary class of the Primal &quot;power source&quot;.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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&amp;DN classes if they really were a merging of &quot;martial exploits&quot;, &quot;expert skills&quot;, &quot;divine prayers&quot;, &quot;arcane spells&quot; (and then &quot;primal evocations&quot;).In the Four Primary Class set... we use singles, pairs, and triples (14 classes):FighterRogueClericWizardFighter/Rogue - AssassinFighter/Cleric - PaladinFighter/Wizard - SorcererRogue/Cleric - RangerRogue/Wizard - BardCleric/Wizard - DruidFighter/Rogue/Cleric - MonkFighter/Rogue/Wizard - WarlockFighter/Cleric/Wizard - BarbarianRogue/Cleric/Wizard - ShamanNow 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):FighterRogueClericWizardDruidFighter/Rogue - AssassinFighter/Cleric - PaladinFighter/Wizard - SorcererFighter/Druid - BarbarianRogue/Cleric - MonkRogue/Wizard - BardRogue/Druid - RangerCleric/Wizard - InvokerCleric/Druid - ShamanWizard/Druid - Warlock*****Do either of these lists actually mean anything?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; Do these ideas have any chance in actually being used in D&amp;DNext?&nbsp; Not a chance.&nbsp; Do I expect almost anyone reading this to actually LIKE any of this?&nbsp; That'd be a big 'no'.&nbsp; But I came up with it while at work and wanted to get it off my chest.&nbsp; So there ya go.&nbsp; Mock it as you like.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 5867093, member: 7006"] 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. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification