Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Khisanth the Ancient" data-source="post: 6881969" data-attributes="member: 11368">Interesting. Yeah, I once (using PF) wrote down all the classes in kind of a 'grid' format using the four 'base' types - Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest.Fighters and Barbarians are pure Warrior. So are Monks, really, though a very different kind.Wizards and Sorcerers are pure Mage.Clerics and Druids are pure Priest.Rogues are pure Rogue.Then the other classes are hybrids:Bard (in older editions) is basically Rogue + Mage. In 5E, that's the Arcane Trickster subclass of Rogue.In Pathfinder the Magus (the only non-core class I think was really worth having) is Warrior + Mage. In 5E, the Eldritch Knight subclass of Fighter fills that role.Ranger and Paladin are both basically Warrior + Priest, though Ranger has a trace of Rogue in it IMO.Which leaves Priest + Mage and Rogue + Priest unclaimed.The other possibility I see 'open' is another Rogue-type. Fighter/Barbarian, Wizard/Sorcerer, and Cleric/Druid all have kind of a learned/civilized vs instinctive/natural dichotomy going. There's no pair like that for the Rogue.Maybe the existing Rogue could be the 'instinctive' one and the new class could be the MacGyver/Gadgeteer/non-spellcasting Artificer other people have talked about on this thread? Not necessarily totally nonmagical though, it would use alchemy and stuff... is that 'magic' or fantasy-science?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Khisanth the Ancient, post: 6881969, member: 11368"] Interesting. Yeah, I once (using PF) wrote down all the classes in kind of a 'grid' format using the four 'base' types - Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest. Fighters and Barbarians are pure Warrior. So are Monks, really, though a very different kind. Wizards and Sorcerers are pure Mage. Clerics and Druids are pure Priest. Rogues are pure Rogue. Then the other classes are hybrids: Bard (in older editions) is basically Rogue + Mage. In 5E, that's the Arcane Trickster subclass of Rogue. In Pathfinder the Magus (the only non-core class I think was really worth having) is Warrior + Mage. In 5E, the Eldritch Knight subclass of Fighter fills that role. Ranger and Paladin are both basically Warrior + Priest, though Ranger has a trace of Rogue in it IMO. Which leaves Priest + Mage and Rogue + Priest unclaimed. The other possibility I see 'open' is another Rogue-type. Fighter/Barbarian, Wizard/Sorcerer, and Cleric/Druid all have kind of a learned/civilized vs instinctive/natural dichotomy going. There's no pair like that for the Rogue. Maybe the existing Rogue could be the 'instinctive' one and the new class could be the MacGyver/Gadgeteer/non-spellcasting Artificer other people have talked about on this thread? Not necessarily totally nonmagical though, it would use alchemy and stuff... is that 'magic' or fantasy-science? [/QUOTE]

Verification