D&D General Which classes fill in this chart?

[Ashrym]

Generally I don’t think grid-filling for the sake of grid-filling leads to the best designs. But it’s still an interesting exercise. I agree with cleric -> paladin -> fighter and druid -> ranger -> barbarian, but wizard -> artificer -> rogue feels weird to me. I could see wizard -> bard -> rogue working if bards were half-casters in 5e, but since they’re full-casters, I think chart might look something like…

Full Caster	Half-Caster	Non-Caster
Bard	Arcane Trickster	Rogue
Cleric	Paladin	Fighter
Druid	Ranger	Barbarian
Sorcerer	Mystic	Monk
Warlock	Hexblade	Assassin
Wizard	Artificer	Tinker

Arcane trickster is of course a rogue subclass in 5e, but if we’re committing to this grid idea I would expand the concept into a full class with half casting (and maybe half sneak attack progression?)

Similarly, hexblade is a warlock subclass, but it has always been a weird one, and I think would be better served as a “half pact magic caster.” For the non-caster in this lineup I went with assassin despite that being another rogue subclass already. But in trying to come up with a non-magical class with a thematic link to warlocks and hexblades, I imagined a character bound in service by a non-magical “pact” to a temporal “patron”, and I realized a contract killer fit that description perfectly.

I’m using “mystic” as the name for the half-caster between Sorcerer and Monk, but I imagine it being quite different than the mystic from Unearthed Arcana. Rather than the equivalent of a full-caster in a full psionic casting-but-not-casting subsystem, I imagine this mystic as bridging the gap between sorcerer and monk through the common theme of inner power. Where the sorcerer’s innate power is purely metaphysical and the monk channels their inner power through their physical body, the mystic would use their mind as a conduit between the two. Sorcerers and monks also both use a power point system, so I imagine the Mystic would do so as well.

The tinker is just a straightforward non-magical artificer. They make cool gadgets and they don’t cast spells. Not very inspiring, but there you have it.

I like the tinker idea. Engineer or mechanic might fit in there too. Reminds me of an old RPG video game with a smith class.

I had the rogue in with the wizard and artificer because the rogue is the go-to class for versatility in the martial classes, often relies on wits or intellect (at least in stories), and often uses tools for effect (think flash bombs grenades, caltrops, ball bearings).

The concern with the bard to trickster to rogue is the seems to point to a specific style of bard rather than being more representative. Not that it doesn't work like that because it is a common thematic bard but it's not my personal typical bard.

It's a nice list.

Warlock is only a full caster in the sense that they get spells of every level; in many other respects they are half-casters, so I put n/a in the half-caster spot for that line (the table editor doesn't do spanning cells).

Warlocks gain spell levels at the same rate as other spell casters as well and using the short rests can cast more spells per day. They are a variation on a full caster by splitting resources. The ability to spam spells is metered on them and that's the only real difference.

Having said that, if I were to do a half-caster on the same model I would probably limit it to 1 slot per short rest until 11th level and then increase it to 2 slots, not give cantrips, add a fighting style, customize a list of invocations with half the progression warlocks have, and then add a few thematic subclass abilities. Possible a couple of class abilities, but definitely no arcanum.

I consider warlord a subtype of fighter that the 5e chassis will never be capable of satisfying the 4e fans of the class. The concept is sound but there's only ever been that design structure and it doesn't fall back in to 5e terms as well as updating older classes.

Oh, my god, I forgot about them! That could totally replace “assassin” as the non-caster on the warlock row in my grid!

I forgot about them at first too. They do fit.

 

[Ashrym]

Not really. The “flow” is off. There’s no cennection between the fighter and cleric besides the paladin is a more fighty cleric. Same with the wizard to rogue, there’s no real connection between them.

Look at 4E and their roles and power sources. That will give you a better idea of what’s present and what’s missing.

You have it with the druid, ranger, barbarian flow in that they’re all nature-themed, or in the parlance of 4E have the primal power source.

It would be easier to define classes by their functions: fight, cast, or sneak. Fighter, magic-user, thief. Then define the rest as combinations of those base three. Cleric is a fighty caster while a paladin a more fighty and less caster. A ranger is a sneaky fighter while a rogue is pure sneaky. But a bard is a fighty sneaky caster.

What if my bard isn't a fighty sneaky caster? Most of them aren't sneaky. ;-)

Ooh, good choice on that one!

Fighters encompass warlords in 5e. That's why the fit. They just haven't translated over well at this point.

 

[Ashrym]

Classes​
Full Caster​	Half-Caster​	Non-Caster​
Bard​	Arcane Trickster​	Rogue​
Cleric​	Paladin​	Fighter/Warlord​
Druid​	Ranger​	Barbarian​
Sorcerer​	Mystic​	Monk​
Warlock​	Hexblade​	Bloodhunter​
Wizard​	Artificer​	Tinker​

I made an updated chart for people to discuss after listening to the feedback. Applying the term warlord for those who want to see it.

 

[Marandahir]

I love that classes aren't beholden to these roles. Artificers could be Arcane Gish warriors or arcane experts, like magical rogues, or Wizards lite with a penchant for magic items. Bards can be warriors or tricksters or scholars. Clerics can be pacifist prophets or templar-like warriors. Paladins can be naturey or demony or Uatu-y, while Rangers can be warriors or sneaks or pet keepers or more magically planar focused. Barbarians can be religious zealots or naturey channelers of ancestor or totem spirits, or just plane werewolves or nonmagical rage-monsters. Or heavily armoured spikey balls of rage, even. Wizards can be necromancers or spellblades or artillerists or enchanters, etc. Monks can be hand-to-hand martial artists or weapon masters, or itinerant holy persons or element-benders or Dragon Ball Z, or psionic astral projection weirdness or penitent pacifists, etc. Warlocks can be nature witches or fiendish witches or alienists or deep summoners or occult priests etc while also being either BDSM-summoners or cheating students who smuggled the text book into the test room or even witch-knights.

I love that 5e broke down the chassis of classes, broadening their scope beyond one or two power sources and combat roles.

I've also tried to make this chassis way too many times in the past few decades. I think there are some good options for you above, but I would learn to let go of the chassis and recognise that each class can have multiple archetypal relationships within it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I like the tinker idea. Engineer or mechanic might fit in there too. Reminds me of an old RPG video game with a smith class.

Ooh, I like “smith” better than “tinker.” Less conceptual overlap with the artificer that way, and it speaks to more of a martial class than a utility one. Maybe call it like “forgewright” or something for added fantasy flavor and to distinguish it from a simple background.

 

[Marandahir]

Ooh, I like “smith” better than “tinker.” Less conceptual overlap with the artificer that way, and it speaks to more of a martial class than a utility one. Maybe call it like “forgewright” or something for added fantasy flavor and to distinguish it from a simple background.

Could also just go with Expert.

Of the three generic NPC classes, I feel like that is the one that could be expanded out into a full class with subclasses like Smith, Merchant, Literati, Mariner, etc (could almost build one for most background and just expand on those into full builds) while being narratively distinct from the Artificer, the Rogue, and the Bard, while similar to all three.

 

[Charlaquin]

What if my bard isn't a fighty sneaky caster? Most of them aren't sneaky. ;-)

The wizard doesn’t have to be crafty to fit with artificer and tinker/smith, why would the bars have to be sneaky to fit with arcane trickster and rogue? I think the connection is more about being diversely-talented and socially savvy rather than fighty and sneaky - though fighty and sneaky is certainly an iconic direction to take characters of any class in that row.

Fighters encompass warlords in 5e. That's why the fit. They just haven't translated over well at this point.

Eh, I disagree with this take, but it isn’t worth getting into here.

 

[Scribe]

Cool thread, I think @Charlaquin probably has my view on it covered, but still a cool thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

Could also just go with Expert.

Of the three generic NPC classes, I feel like that is the one that could be expanded out into a full class with subclasses while being narratively distinct from the Artificer, the Rogue, and the Bard, while similar to all three.

You could do that, for sure. Though conceptually I feel like Expert is more conceptually aligned with the bard/rogue continuum. Indeed, I think expertise is the defining factor of that continuum.

Though, that kinda makes me think, maybe the Artificer should be the half-caster on the bard/rogue row rather than the wizard row. I put it with the wizard mostly because they’re both int-based casters, but they are also defined by expertise.

 

[Marandahir]

You could do that, for sure. Though conceptually I feel like Expert is more conceptually aligned with the bard/rogue continuum. Indeed, I think expertise is the defining factor of that continuum.

Though, that kinda makes me think, maybe the Artificer should be the half-caster on the bard/rogue row rather than the wizard row. I put it with the wizard mostly because they’re both int-based casters, but they are also defined by expertise.

That's why I think this breaks down a bit. Rogues can be Dex/Int as well, like the Inquisitive or the Mastermind, or the Arcane Trickster.

I think Artificer definitely occupies a space between Wizard and Rogue (or Wizard and Expert, imho), but Bards and Artificers and Rogues and Experts all share a continuity of a focus on skill. Rangers dabble in this concept too, even if they don't get Expertise. It's the stealthy, skillful characters.

While Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, (and Blood Hunters), along with some Artificers, some Clerics, some Druids, some Bards, and some Wizards are more fighty punch punch slash slash.

And Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Bards, Clerics, and Druids are very much magical castery in nature.

But there's a lot of overlap and trying to make a single placement seems difficult and limiting. I'd put the Battle Smith and the Forge Adept Artificer between Wizard and Fighter, but the Artillerist and Alchemist and Maverick between Wizard and Rogue, or even Bard and Rogue.

I think if one REALLY wants to make this chassis, it should be done with subclasses rather than with the classes themselves, and allow more than one class/subclass to occupy each space.