# EUREKA! THE ULTIMATE CROWN JEWEL OF CLASS ARCHTYPES!!!



## steeldragons (Oct 16, 2013)

I've done it! I've FINALLY done it!

The absolute ultimate breakdown and organization of D&D characters! The Holy Grail of archetypes! The Rosetta Stone of classes!

Anything not on this diagram is easily added/specialized by themes, skill sets/kits, backgrounds, etc...

Using 1e-thru-4e, 5e, OSR, Pathfinder, you name it...you can get a class you want following this.

First, the visual...then explanations.



The gem is initially cut into quadrants:
The Warriors: Those classes who handle things primarily with weapons and toughness.
The Wizards: Those classes who handle things primarily with magic spells.
The Rogues: Those classes who handle things primarily with skills and trickery.
The Priests: Those classes who handle things primarily with beliefs and enlightenment (which might include weapons and/or spells and/or skills, toughness, knowledge and/or trickery, depending on the beliefs/deities),

Note: Warriors and Wizards are diametrically opposed. Brawn vs. Brain. Combat vs. Study. Power through external force (weapons) vs. Power through personal force (arcane magic).
Rogues and Priests are diametrically opposed. Self-reliance vs. Reliance on an Other. Skills vs. Faith. Learning vs. Believing. Power through personal force (skills) vs. Power through external force (divine magic):

Further detail to follow...


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 16, 2013)

The Big Four need no introduction. They are the Cardinal Four  classes. The "default"/"basic" classes for each type of character. These  are the 1st Tier classes, if you will. The broadest most flexible  categories of archetypes, each providing a myriad of kinds of characters  within them.:
*Fighter
Mage
Cleric
Thief.*

From these, where they meet "in the middle"/50-50 split, we get (for lack of a better term) the "4 Corners":
Where Fighter & Cleric meet = *Paladin*
Where Fighter & Rogue meet = *Ranger*
Where Wizard & Priest meet = *Druid*
Where Wizard & Rogue meet = *Warlock*

The  2nd Tier classes, if you will. Marginally more defined in abilities,  but still open to fluff interpretation and crunch focus in various ways  (a Paladin can be powered/devoted to a god or virtues or oaths, set  alignments or not, etc...; Druids can be primarily shapeshifters or  spellcasters or beastmasters, etc...). But each still maintains a degree  of broadness for interpretation of characters. 

Also counted  among the 2nd Tier are the "outlier" classes. These are archetypes that  have been around in the D&D game in some form or another for a  rather long time and also offer a broad array of possibilities that can  not be otherwise encapsulated:
*Monk* [in the martial artist sense]: a class beyond the Warrior who can potentially simulate elements from any other class.
*Psychic:* a class beyond the Wizard who can potentially simulate elements from any other class.
*Bard:* a class within, yet beyond, the cardinal four that encompasses elements from any other class.

From  here, we begin to shade the greys, as it were. Those classes that are a  specific type, within "one step" of the Big Four, they could be  considered further members of the 2nd tier or a 2.5 tier. Alternately  they are easily subsumed within the Defaults/Cardinal class, but I think  their archetypes are both broad enough and supported from literature,  myth and [in some cases] history to warrant carving them out of the  default block:

WARRIOR + priest =  *The Cavalier*:  a Fighter with a degree of enlightenment (perhaps defined as "honor" or  "chivalry"), but not such a devotion as to warrant the Paladin's  magic-mojo.

WARRIOR + rogue =* The Barbarian*: a  Fighter with a degree of skill, though toughness and ferocity outweigh  the skill-dependence (in and out of battle) of the Ranger.

WIZARD + priest = *The Necromancer:*  a Wizard with a degree of  enlightenment (perhaps defined as delving into layers of magic not  normally understood or attempted), but not such a devotion as to warrant  the powers of a Druid.

WIZARD + rogue = *The Illusionist:*  a Wizard with a degree of skill, though trickery and study outweigh the  skill-dependence and self-reliance needed to work the raw energies of a  Warlock.

Conversely (moving diagonally in the opposite  directions) and contrarily (moving across the center of the cardinal  points), the archetypes are not quite so strong...I would classify these  as the 3rd Tier of classes. Their fluff and crunch variations are less  open to flexibility. The focus of the character becomes more set.:

Conversely:
ROGUE + warrior =* The Assassin:* a Rogue augmenting their skills and trickery with weapons and toughness (particularly to kill).

ROGUE + wizard = *The Trickster:* a Rogue augmenting their skills and trickery with arcane magic and knowledge.

PRIEST + warrior = *The Mystic: *a Priest augmenting their enlightenment with weapons and toughness.

PRIEST + wizard = *The Thaumaturgist:* a Priest augmenting their enlightenment with arcane magic and knowledge.

Contrarily:
WIZARD + warrior = *The Battlemage:*  a Wizard who augments their magic with armor and/or weapons. Note, the  Battlemage is a step toward or possible variation on the  "all-encompassing-yet-outsider-class", Bard.

WARRIOR + wizard = *The Sword-caster* [_so called because  I couldn't decide on a Swordmage/Spellsword/Eldritch Knight term, but  wanted it clear that the Sword/Weapon/Warrior bit comes first_]: a  Warrior who augments their weapons and toughness with magic and  knowledge. Note, the Sword-caster is a step toward or possible variation  on the "all-encompassing-yet-outsider-class", Bard.

PRIEST + rogue = *The Shaman: *a  Priest who augments their enlightenment with skills and/or trickery.  Note, the Shaman is a step toward or possible variation on the  "all-encompassing-yet-outsider-class", Bard.

ROGUE + priest = *The Avenger:*  a Rogue who augments their skills and trickery with some beliefs and/or  enlightenment. Note, the Avenger is a step toward or possible variation  on the "all-encompassing-yet-outsider-class", Bard.

The 4th Tier  includes those very specific types which warrant calling out of the  default cardinal points because they can be applied to any class with  which they align, including outliers, extending to the center. Since  their type is so broadly applicable, I thought they warranted inclusion.
*
The Warlord:*  the inspirational warrior-leader type. Any Fighter, Paladin, Cavalier,  Barbarian, Ranger, Sword-caster, Monk or Bard could be made/played as_ a Warlord.
_*The Oracle:*  the divinely gifted or inspired seer of things unknown. Any Cleric,  Druid, Paladin, Thaumaturgist, Mystic, Shaman, Psychic, Monk or Bard  could be made/played as_ an Oracle.
_*The Acrobat*: the flipping, tumbling, speedy master of balance and reflexes. Any Thief, Assassin, Avenger, Trickster, Ranger, Warlock or Bard could be made/played as a_n Acrobat.
_*The Witch:* the natural weaver of hexes and brews. Any Mage, Druid, Necromancer, Illusionist, Warlock, Psychic or  Bard could be made/played as_ a Witch._

And  thus, the answer to the eternal question of "How many/Which classes are  needed to make/cover the bases" for a fantasy (D&D-esque) RPG...There ya go. Anywhere from 4 to 27. 

Cut  options off anywhere after Tier 1 you prefer.
1) Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Rogue
2) Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Warlock...Monk, Bard, Psychic
2.5) Cavalier, Barbarian, Necromancer, Illusionist
3) Mystic, Shaman, Thaumaturgist, Assassin, Avenger, Trickster, Sword-caster, Battlemage
4) Warlord,  Witch, Oracle, Acrobat


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 16, 2013)

I have to admit, I like this a lot.  I like the feel of the Druid as a learned holy man, and the Necromancer as a Wizard who studies the mysteries of life and death like priest do.

Considering the mystic/cleric/thaumaturgist split:  I can see the thaumaturgist as the FF White Mage/4e Invoker archetype.  The paladin has his own set of archetypal abilities that are distinct from the cleric's spells.  What would be the distinction between a cleric and a mystic?  Assuming we have the cleric as the classic armored healer from OD&D on.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 16, 2013)

Sorry, but I fail to see where does the sorcerer fall in the middle of this all, you know the likable unschooled and potentially ignorant or even outright stupid wielder of instinctive magic who isn't afraid of getting his hands dirty and could come from literally anywhere any place in the world even those were books don't exist?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 16, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> Sorry, but I fail to see where does the sorcerer fall in the middle of this all, you know the likable unschooled and potentially ignorant or even outright stupid wielder of instinctive magic who isn't afraid of getting his hands dirty and could come from literally anywhere any place in the world even those were books don't exist?




From what steeldragons put forth... my initial instinct would be that the sorcerer would sit next to the psychic, as the class outside of the wizard.  So it'd be Psychic/Sorcerer.  Both of them are instinctual wielders of magic (like you said).  One doesn't learn to be psychic (like a wizard), you either are or you aren't (just like a sorcerer.)

Personally... I've never seen "psionic" magic as different from "arcane" magic because they're both nebulous terms that do nothing to describe what the forces involved actually are.  Sso to me psychics are just sorcerers who work with mind magic / charms etc.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 16, 2013)

I don't TOTALLY agree, but heck, I love a good graphic, and respect the thoroughness here, so


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 16, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> Considering the mystic/cleric/thaumaturgist split:  I can see the thaumaturgist as the FF White Mage/4e Invoker archetype.  The paladin has his own set of archetypal abilities that are distinct from the cleric's spells.  What would be the distinction between a cleric and a mystic?  Assuming we have the cleric as the classic armored healer from OD&D on.




Well, the armor-wearing healer cleric would be one of those many myriads of the default Priest. The Mystic, and I'll add here that coming up with a term for this one was the most difficult/last one I filled in, so a better title is entirely possible, I was thinking would be the more combat inclined/martial artist. The "monk-ish" guy but with the "holy-disciplined-ascetic" baggage (which the more straight "Warrior martial artist Monk" doesn't need/have) and some "priestly" powers but not spells, like a Paladin has.



KaiiLurker said:


> Sorry, but I fail to see where does the sorcerer fall in the middle of this all,




Well, Defcon's suggestion as putting it into the Psychic is a good one. There's no reason one couldn't flavor someone with a Psychic's innate powers as a sorcerer. 

What I was thinking was it is simply one of the myriad of possibilities for the "Wizard: Mage" default. You could easily create a Mage whose magic powers are innate and perfected through trial/error/practice instead of study.

Alternatively, if the "But I have to be able to use weapons and wear armor too cuz [for some reason] that's what I think a sorcerer is!", one could make a "sorcerer" from the Bard. Again, the Bard character just flavored as an innately magical versus studied/learned person...not so far fetched as the fantasy genre goes.



KaiiLurker said:


> you know the likable unschooled and potentially ignorant or even outright stupid wielder of instinctive magic who isn't afraid of getting his hands dirty and could come from literally anywhere any place in the world even those were books don't exist?




That sounds like a very specific individual, not a fantasy character archetype...and no, I do not know them.  I see nothing in this character that can not be accomplished but using a Mage, Psychic or Bard...possibly others as well. But definitely not something requiring its own facet in the Crown Jewel.

As long as the only thing defining a "Sorcerer", as you seem to be thinking, is an arcane magic-user who is innately magical/doesn't need to study, that is a matter of fluff easily accomplished through any of the arcane spell-casting variations I've listed or simply be included as one of the options within the default block. A Witch could be a sorcerer. A Thaumaturgist could be a sorcerer (I, personally, would not fluff them as such. But it is a possibility I wouldn't begrudge others). An Illusionist or Trickster could be a sorcerer...as well as any Mage, Psychic or Bard.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't TOTALLY agree, but heck, I love a good graphic, and respect the thoroughness here, so...




My thanks. I appreciate that.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 16, 2013)

you have ranger and druid as opposites...

partial fail or total fail?


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 16, 2013)

Good looking thing, you got there.

A suggestion for where Monks, Psychics, and Sorcerers (and Invokers) could be is outside the Tier 1 classes as the "natural" or innate class. Don't know what the innate Rogue is though.


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 16, 2013)

TerraDave said:


> you have ranger and druid as opposites...
> 
> partial fail or total fail?




Druid is the combination of a Priest, using the powers from their beliefs, and a Wizard, using magic and knowledge, to tackle the challenges of adventure. So it sits in that corner between Priest and Wizard.
Ranger is the combination of a Warrior, using weapons and toughness, and Rogue, using skills and trickery, to tackle the challenges of adventure. So it sits in that corner between Warrior and Rogue.

Perhaps you would rather, look at it as "Druid is the nature-themed spell-caster. Ranger who is the nature-themed fighting guy." Naturally, as I've set up the rest of the jewel, they _should _sit across from each other.

So, no. No "fail" in any amount as far as I can see. But thanks for voicing your concern/confusion.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 16, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> "Druid is the nature-themed spell-caster. Ranger who is the nature-themed fighting guy." Naturally, as I've set up the rest of the jewel, they _should _sit across from each other.




Ahh. But that what they basically are. "Priest of (god of) Magic" would fit in your "druid" space much better, something like "swashbuckler" would fit in your ranger space better. 

I am starting to see some smoke and sparks coming from the jewel.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 16, 2013)

TerraDave said:


> Ahh. But that what they basically are. "Priest of (god of) Magic" would fit in your "druid" space much better, something like "swashbuckler" would fit in your ranger space better.



Well, 4e saw enough thematic coherence within the "outdoors/nature power" concept to codify it as the primal power source.  So the question is, would it make sense as an overlay over the priest pole (like the Sorcerer could do with the Wizard) or added as a 5th pole in a modified pentagon?  Or just keep it as a thematic tag to be added onto some of the positions within the layout?


----------



## Razjah (Oct 16, 2013)

I don't even care about classes, I really like this for explaining classless systems. You can fight and use magic. Which one do you lean towards?

I have seen many people explain classless builds in terms of D&D classes (which I find pretty funny) but using this as a guideline for how to conceptualize classes is excellent. Great work! I can definitely see myself using this in the future.


----------



## PigKnight (Oct 16, 2013)

I expected this to be bad from the title, but...


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 17, 2013)

Ok, I has some questions on your tier 3 and 4.

The Oracle, as Pathfinder presents it, is a sorcerer version of the cleric. Not sure how it matches the priest/rogue spectrum. 
The Mystic class is too vague. There have been three mystics in D&D; a Basic Class which was the monk, a 2e class which was a kinda witch-priest, and a 3e class which was a sorcerer version of the cleric. None of them scream "battle caster". CRUSADER might fill that niche though. 
I think Witch is probably in a better place where the thaumatgist is. Most of the witch classes I saw were a mix of arcane enchantments/necromancy and divine healing/divination. I'd put the evoker (a mage focusing on battle magic) or the sorcerer in where the witch is now.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 17, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> Well, Defcon's suggestion as putting it into the Psychic is a good one. There's no reason one couldn't flavor someone with a Psychic's innate powers as a sorcerer.
> 
> What I was thinking was it is simply one of the myriad of possibilities for the "Wizard: Mage" default. You could easily create a Mage whose magic powers are innate and perfected through trial/error/practice instead of study.
> 
> ...




I don't know as long as you equate the arcane caster with knowledge you cannot truly call it a day. You defined the Druid as the learned priest by putting it next to the arcane axis. The Sorcerer goes beyond mere fluff, unlike the dnd wizard and the bard the sorcerer class isn't knowledge focused, simple refluffing doesn't cut it (yes a sorcerer can be knowledgeable, but in the four versions of the class, ARcana or knowledge arcana is always the lowest point of the class, in 4e the compulsory arcane trainning was out of place given that Int competes with a co-secundary score -dex-, and  in 3.0, 3.5 and PF is to qualify for some fix feats and wizardy PrCs) Just given this fact makes the sorcerer class even more generic than the wizard -the core of the class isn't "mommy was a dragon/angel/thing" but "I just have magic" compare it with the "I studied to get magic" from wizards. 

Also how do you refluff the compulsory esoteric knowledge training on the wizard to have nothing to do with knowledge? hoe do you refluff a class feature that centers on the existance of books so it has nothing to do with books?


----------



## Orius (Oct 17, 2013)

I generally like it.  I like the core 4 classes and the way you have them paired and diametrically opposed, it's the same way I view the classes' place in the game.  I like the bard at the center too, as the class that can do a little bit of all the other classes.  Psychic has a good positioning outside since they don't really fit into the standard structure, though some monk concepts could just as well fit between Warrior and Priest (fighting and enlightenment.).  I'd probably cut off after 2 or 2.5.

Main problem with the ranger is that it's a Warrior with touches of rogue and druid.  Warrior + Rogue works well with the diagram, but it's harder to mix the Warrior + Druid aspect when Druid is between Wizard and Priest and Wizard is the opposite of Warrior.


----------



## Balesir (Oct 17, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> Well, 4e saw enough thematic coherence within the "outdoors/nature power" concept to codify it as the primal power source.  So the question is, would it make sense as an overlay over the priest pole (like the Sorcerer could do with the Wizard) or added as a 5th pole in a modified pentagon?  Or just keep it as a thematic tag to be added onto some of the positions within the layout?



Yes, I can't avoid thinking that the "jewel" could benefit from being made three dimensional. If you add one "pole" above for "allies with the power of nature" and one below for "users of raw talent" I think you could find homes for the monk, ranger, druid, sorceror and psychic that fit better with their overall tone. Ranger has only been without (nature) magic in recent editions, and 3.x/4E classes like Warden would fit in the space between Warrior and Druid, too. Shaman could be better integrated...


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 17, 2013)

Razjah said:


> I don't even care about classes, I really like this for explaining classless systems. You can fight and use magic. Which one do you lean towards?
> 
> I have seen many people explain classless builds in terms of D&D classes (which I find pretty funny) but using this as a guideline for how to conceptualize classes is excellent. Great work! I can definitely see myself using this in the future.






PigKnight said:


> I expected this to be bad from the title, but...




Thanks! Glad you like it...I'd not remotely considered it as a classless system aid, but if it helps, I'm so pleased!


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 17, 2013)

Ok...Well, I anticipated some of this...er, stuff...So I'll try to take it on one issue at a time. DAMN y'all are some whiny baetches. hahaha. 

FIRST, I will say (in hopes of quenching a few fires) that the diagram is not established to relate to mechanics or access to all class abilities and powers. The fact that the Ranger is not near the druid has no baring on whether or not you could give you Ranger some druidic magic. 

To quote myself:


> The  2nd Tier classes, if you will. Marginally more defined in  abilities,  but still open to fluff interpretation and crunch focus in  various ways  (a Paladin can be powered/devoted to a god or virtues or  oaths, set  alignments or not, etc...; Druids can be primarily  shapeshifters or  spellcasters or beastmasters, etc...). But each still  maintains a degree  of broadness for interpretation of characters.
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?346813-EUREKA!-THE-ULTIMATE-CROWN-JEWEL-OF-CLASS-ARCHTYPES!!!#ixzz2hySMl4Zf
> ​




So your Rangers, even though, yes, on the diagram they're alllll the way on the other side, could still be a druid magic caster, or a beastmaster or have some arcane spells or be a warrior who tracks, or a rogue who wears chainmail, or a bow-specialized scout or a battle-axe swinging unparalleled slayer of things big and bad...or a bunch of other things.

They are, primarily, first, foremost, undeniably, and I argue moreso than other class types here presented, a class that conquers the tribulations of adventuring as a Warrior (weapons, toughness) and Rogue (skills and trickery) in equal measure. Whatever specific abilities they have or however detailed or mechanically tweaked out those things are is not something this diagram is designed to relay.

This kind of thinking goes for everything on the diagram, not just the Ranger.


TerraDave said:


> Ahh. But that what they basically are. "Priest of (god of) Magic" would fit in your "druid" space much better, something like "swashbuckler" would fit in your ranger space better.
> 
> I am starting to see some smoke and sparks coming from the jewel.



Then I suggest you take the tinfoil out of the microwave. 

A "Priest of [a god of] Magic" would be likely a Cleric under the big, broad, Priest block. I could see the case, in a god of Magic's case, for an order of Thaumaturgists equally well. No reason they would go in the archetypal space of the Druid. They are a Priest...of a God...what that is a god of does not change the "*How they do* *adventuring"* of the Cleric class.  

It is interesting to note that Swashbuckler was in the bidding for a space for a while, but while I certainly agree it is a mixed Warrior/Rogue, it is not in my view the perfect mix of the Warrior/Rogue. Let me explain.

Again, looking at the definitions and reasoning behind my placements for what goes where and why, a Swashbuckler, for all of their jumping and flipping and chandelier swinging antics is, foremost, a Warrior with some [likely nautical] skills. They tackle adventuring through the use of their weapons, possibly with a secondary Charisma/persuation/interactions thing going on. But they are going to pull out their rapier (or cutlass) and dirk and go to town.

Reading through how I classified things, the Swashbuckler fits more into the space of Warlords and Acrobats. Any Fighter or Thief or Assassin or Bard or, for that matter, Warlord or Acrobat dressed up in light armor with a light/simple blade and high Dex. could be made/played as a_ Swashbuckler._ SO, I'll grant they're a large enough _type_ to be included but they are not, necessarily, an _arche_type sufficient to occupy the full 2nd tier "corner spot" of the Ranger. 



Remathilis said:


> Ok, I has some questions on your tier 3 and 4.



Fire away. 



Remathilis said:


> The Oracle, as Pathfinder presents it, is a sorcerer version of the cleric. Not sure how it matches the priest/rogue spectrum.



It sits where it is, rather contained by the Priestly quandrant. As explained in the long post at the beginning:


> The 4th Tier  includes those very specific types which warrant calling  out of the  default cardinal points because they can be applied to any  class with  which they align, including outliers, extending to the  center. Since  their type is so broadly applicable, I thought they  warranted inclusion.
> -snip-*The Oracle:*  the divinely gifted or inspired seer of things  unknown. Any Cleric,  Druid, Paladin, Thaumaturgist, Mystic, Shaman,  Psychic, Monk or Bard  could be made/played as_ an Oracle._
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?346813-EUREKA!-THE-ULTIMATE-CROWN-JEWEL-OF-CLASS-ARCHTYPES!!!#ixzz2hyV2OGgr
> ​



So, in that vein, it isn't really there to fit the priest/rogue spectrum so much as a neat place to put them within the "center" of Priest/Cleric-land.



Remathilis said:


> The Mystic class is too vague. There have been three mystics in D&D; a Basic Class which was the monk, a 2e class which was a kinda witch-priest, and a 3e class which was a sorcerer version of the cleric. None of them scream "battle caster". CRUSADER might fill that niche though.



As I mentioned in an earlier response, the was the toughest block to label...Crusader is good...I am almost inclined to change it. However, the problem there becomes, I can see Paladins, Clerics and Cavaliers (all very easily) being Crusaders...warlords and fighters as well...I think Crusader might be another little "type" [a la warlord, oracle, et. al.]. It is a tough nut this "Priestly/enlightened character with some Warrior training but more/closer to a priest than a warrior." But, as the jewel is built around the Block ---> block model...a "Cleric leaning toward Fighter" to balance the "Fighter leaning toward Cleric" are both needed...Actually, put like that, Crusader again sounds like a better option.



Remathilis said:


> I think Witch is probably in a better place where the thaumatgist is. Most of the witch classes I saw were a mix of arcane enchantments/necromancy and divine healing/divination. I'd put the evoker (a mage focusing on battle magic) or the sorcerer in where the witch is now.



See above re: Oracle/those 4th tier "types."

Evoker, like Swashbuckler, was on the board for a time...and certainly makes sense where you propose. Witch is more where it was, though it does work in terms of my explanation and I stand by that, but it was a bit of a shoehorn.

Witch, initially was floating somewhere between Mage and Druid (to insinuate the healing/divination you mention)...but then I thought of all of the various types of characters that could be made/played as a "Witch" and it became the Wizard's "called out type" that works with just about everything else in that quadrant. Thus, you can make a Druid-ish Witch as easily as you can make a "faye-illusionist witch." So...yeah, that's why it's there where it is.

more to come...and thanks to everyone for the comments, even those disagreeing!


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 17, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> I don't know as long as you equate the arcane caster with knowledge you cannot truly call it a day. You defined the Druid as the learned priest by putting it next to the arcane axis.




Ah yes. This was anticipated as well. I recall you have a kind of dissonance when it comes to sorcerers [note the small "s"]. I will try to explain. 

The Wizard block contains all kinds of arcane magic users that can be considered "wizards" in whatever world they are in. Their being a Wizard means they depend on their magic and knowledge to handle the challenges of adventuring. Again, note the small "k." The Wizard block and Mage default label are,* in no way*, defining the abilities and specific mechanics and "Lore skills."

Your game world or even just your specific character can be an innately magical "sorcerer" who uses their arcane spells through personal force of will and concentration...the other guy at the table makes a character that uses arcane spells that they learn and study and write in books. BOTH types have _knowledge_ of how to use their magic...one's figured it out themselves, one's read it in a book.

It is _different_ knowledge,_ different_ modes of access their magic, but the core of the class: "using magic and their knowledge" is...not similar, but _precisely the same. _Thus, sorcerer is _not _a different class from a book-studying magic-user whether they're called "wizard" or "mage" or "sorcerer" or anything else.

As for the Druid's position, it is there, again, because it moreso than any other archetypal class a Priest and a Wizard in equal measure. They use their enlightenment, faith in their beliefs, magic and knowledge. There is also the added layer of their magic doing "some stuff divine magic can do" and "other stuff arcane magic can do." but that's not really important for their position by "How they do adventuring."

If a game, campaign setting or individual player defines that as "Natural magic" or the "Primal Power Source", "Druid spells" or simply innate druidic powers, doesn't really matter. A Druid can easily be interpreted, conceived, created and played as "a learned priest [of nature]." Sure. They can as easily be: the wild mad man in the woods that knows and can do strange things, the shapeshifter, the guy that tends the fields and animals of a village or surrounds themself with the animals of the wild woods, the local healer or "wise woman" [a Witch type of druid?], the defender of Nature or their Order of Nature Priests' liaison with the realms of "civilized" Men...even a "nature magic adept" with innate magic-using ability, viewed by those in town as a "sorcerer" even! 

None of that alters where the Druid is or why it is there...and, applied to your assertions about Sorcerer, should show why it is not included as its own separate class archetype.



KaiiLurker said:


> The Sorcerer goes beyond mere fluff, unlike the dnd wizard and the bard the sorcerer class isn't knowledge focused,




I disagree...on both counts. The first is illustrated above, the second is the apparent needing to repeat your set-in-stone view of that "knowledge" immediately implies only that the character has Lore skills. This diagram, once again because it bares repeating, does not speak to the specific mechanics of a particular class since, as evidenced above, and explained in the second post, this breakdown is about the types of classes...the "How they do." Questions and arguments about "what they have" to do "how they do" are not relevant...not warrant individual classes.

I can make a Cleric that can Channel. I could use the same Channel mechanic for a Warlock's powers. Because one person's Cleric channels different  and another just "Turns Undead" and still another only has spells, no channeling, doesn't mean each type of Cleric deserves its own Class.

I can make a Paladin that can Channel as well...or one that can't channel but has access to divine spells...or one that just evokes Auras of their powers on their own no channel or spellcasting mechanic at all (hmm...does that make them a sorcerer-paladin? 

Are you beginning to see or am I just talking in circles/loosing you?


KaiiLurker said:


> simple refluffing doesn't cut it (yes a sorcerer can be knowledgeable, but in the four versions of the class, ARcana or knowledge arcana is always the lowest point of the class, in 4e the compulsory arcane trainning was out of place given that Int competes with a co-secundary score -dex-, and  in 3.0, 3.5 and PF is to qualify for some fix feats and wizardy PrCs)




See above. None of this is relevant.



KaiiLurker said:


> Just given this fact makes the sorcerer class even more generic than the wizard -the core of the class isn't "mommy was a dragon/angel/thing" but "I just have magic" compare it with the "I studied to get magic" from wizards.




And that, "I just have magic" puts them squarely, firmly, inarguably within the block of Wizard classes, for which the Mage is the default...now if to that Mage is tacked on studying and preparing spells from books and Arcane Lore skills, that's one kind of Mage. Just as easily and completely justifiable is tacking on "I just have magic and learned/figured out how to use it like this" [due to the fluff only bits of "mommy's a dragon/angel/thing" or "folks in this world are just born with it" or whatever]. Now, if you want to call that character a "Sorcerer" then fine. But it is just as easily called a "Mage" or, by virtue of it adventuring by using its magic and knowledge, a ""Wizard."  



KaiiLurker said:


> Also how do you refluff the compulsory esoteric knowledge training on the wizard to have nothing to do with knowledge? hoe do you refluff a class feature that centers on the existance of books so it has nothing to do with books?




See above, re: refluffing options and one's "locked in" definitions of knowledge and wizard. I think I've offered at least a couple of refluffing options. There are, no doubt, many more just waiting to be created. In case I'm not being clear: You "take out "compulsory esoteric knowledge training" and put in "I'm just magic cuz mommy was a dragon" or "This half-giant guy walked into my hovel one day and told me, 'Yer a wizard, Harry.'" or "This world doesn't have wizard academies. People [even EVERYone in the world] is born with magic. They just have to figure out how to use it."


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 17, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Yes, I can't avoid thinking that the "jewel" could benefit from being made three dimensional. If you add one "pole" above for "allies with the power of nature" and one below for "users of raw talent" I think you could find homes for the monk, ranger, druid, sorceror and psychic that fit better with their overall tone. Ranger has only been without (nature) magic in recent editions, and 3.x/4E classes like Warden would fit in the space between Warrior and Druid, too. Shaman could be better integrated...




This is a really interesting suggestion...maybe I'll give it a shot...obviously would require a different/more than one diagram. But it's an interesting thought...and challenge...hmmmm.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 17, 2013)

In terms of the Mystic/Crusader question... the class that is CLERIC/Fighter (as opposed to the Cavalier which is Cleric/FIGHTER)... I'd actually go with the Templar myself.  I think you are right in that Crusader seems a bit too much an offshoot of paladin, and that the mystic is a bit nebulous.

(At least to me) the Templar invokes a more martial bent that your standard Cleric.  Clerics cover the whole gamut of warrior priests to cloistered priests... whereas Templars imply going out in the world and fighting for their gods.  Technically that matches what Crusaders do at the broadest level... but because Templar is adapted from "temple", plus has the Knights Templar as a concept in the back of our heads... I at least get more of a religious and clerical feel from them than I do the Crusader.  Maybe it doesn't invoke that in other people (valid choice), but I certainly buy it more than Mystic at the very least.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 17, 2013)

Oh, and I'd also second the point that the CLERIC/Wizard be called Invoker rather than Thamauturgist.  Might as well use the class name that is still active amongst the playerbase than one that's barely had any traction over the years.


----------



## Balesir (Oct 17, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> This is a really interesting suggestion...maybe I'll give it a shot...obviously would require a different/more than one diagram. But it's an interesting thought...and challenge...hmmmm.



Yeah, I admit it would be a bea-hitch to draw! 

Glad you like the basic idea, though - there's no real reason to be limited to two dimensions (other than the drawing thing...)

P.S.: Isometric drawing paper (a grid of equilateral triangles - squint and you can see them as a 3D grid of cubes) might help.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 17, 2013)

You've taken on a hard task, SD. I think you've done a pretty good job. Honestly, if someone had drawn up something like this way back when, then designed classes to it, instead of lumping things together hodgepodge, I think we'd be in a better place. As it is, people think you've misplaced classes because the classes themselves aren't very coherent.

PS


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 17, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> This is a really interesting suggestion...maybe I'll give it a shot...obviously would require a different/more than one diagram. But it's an interesting thought...and challenge...hmmmm.




Eh... based upon how you structured your original idea-- the two axis of brains versus brawn and self action versus granted action... adding in another point just for "nature based" goes against everything you put forth.

Because let's be clear here... Druids, Barbarians, Rangers, Wardens, and Shaman COULD all be _one class_.  Just like the Cleric.

The Cleric encompasses all different types and styles of character-- entirely based around the god they have chosen to follow.  Melee types, ranged weapon types, skill-based types, magic types, defender types, slayer types etc. etc.  The only connection all these different types of characters have is that their abilities are granted and/or heightened by divine influence.

By the same token... if you were to pluck out "divine influence" and replace it with "nature" (and the different types of nature having various influences and "domains")... you could subsume all those other classes into a single one.  The "barbarian domain" is like the cleric's Storm domain.  The "shaman domain" is like the cleric's Life domain.  The "druid domain" is like the Cleric's Magic domain.  The "ranger domain" is like the cleric's Trickery domain.

So if you're going to give "being nature-based!" the same standing you are giving what is the baseline influence of the the cleric... then really all the spokes off the cleric shouldn't be new classes... but rather just the domains of the cleric.  Because the spokes off of "divine influence" are those domains, just like the spokes off of "nature's influence" have been designated as full classes (when in actuality, if we're using the cleric as a mirror... they probably shouldn't.)


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 17, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> Ah yes. This was anticipated as well. I recall you have a kind of dissonance when it comes to sorcerers [note the small "s"]. I will try to explain.
> 
> The Wizard block contains all kinds of arcane magic users that can be considered "wizards" in whatever world they are in. Their *being a Wizard means they depend on their magic and knowledge to handle the challenges of adventuring.* Again, note the small "k." The Wizard block and Mage default label are,_in no way_, defining the abilities and specific mechanics and "Lore skills."




The bold part is the part where we don't agree. (more to that below) There is a huge difference between "I solve challenges using my magic" and "I solve challenges using my arcane knowledge of magic", the later excludes a big amount of characters the former embraces. (again more to that below)



> Your game world or even just your specific character can be an innately  magical "sorcerer" who uses their arcane spells through personal force  of will and concentration...the other guy at the table makes a character  that uses arcane spells that they learn and study and write in books.  BOTH types have _knowledge_ of how to use their magic...one's figured it out themselves, one's read it in a book.




I argue that having the ability to control something doesn't really matches with knowing that same thing, under your premise and ample meaning of _knowledge_ (and to be honest is fair, such is the way people normally use the word knowledge, most people can safely exchange "I can cook" with "I know how to cook") *Every character solves challenges through something and knowledge*. and as consequence saying "magic and knowledge" is redundant, thus saying a *wizard solves challenges with magic* produces no dissonance to me. (see the next paragraph)




> It is _different_ knowledge,_ different_ modes of access their magic, but the core of the class: "using magic and their knowledge" is...not similar, but _precisely the same. _Thus, sorcerer is _not _a different class from a book-studying magic-user whether they're called "wizard" or "mage" or "sorcerer" or anything else.



Under the amended expression "using magic", yes innate, learned, pacted, bestowed, cursed, inherited magic users are indeed a single class. The problem is this second instance of "knowledge" is a using the more restricted definition of knowledge, the one that translates as lores, academical knowledge, erudite knowledge, mental knowledge all of them beyond simple know how, then this second instance of "using magic and knowledge" is more restricted as reinforced by your view of the Druid. 




> See above, re: refluffing options and one's "locked in" definitions of  knowledge and wizard. I think I've offered at least a couple of  refluffing options. There are, no doubt, many more just waiting to be  created. In case I'm not being clear: You "take out "compulsory esoteric  knowledge training" and put in "I'm just magic cuz mommy was a dragon"  or "This half-giant guy walked into my hovel one day and told me, 'Yer a  wizard, Harry.'" or "This world doesn't have wizard academies. People  [even EVERYone in the world] is born with magic. They just have to  figure out how to use it."




Again conflating the know how with the know why. Having the know how means you have the skill to control or do something, Having the know why translates in a whole different set of abilities. For example my brother is a great driver, has the right instincts when it comes to driving, has no problems understanding that he needs to refill the car with gas, when to do the changes and stuff. Yet he doesn't knows the why of all these things, the principle under which the motor works, the story of the internal combustion engine, who invented it, it's parts and the way they interact, how do you recognize the internal parts of a car, why fuel injection cars are turned on differently than older ones, how to find the source of mechanical failures, etc, I do know those things and can contribute with that knowledge when a situation arises while he doesn't, yet he is the better driver of the two and would gladly have him as the driver if we were being chased. I know what to do to drive because I understand the machine below, he knows what to do to drive because it works. If there was a generic driver class he would be the archetypal driver and I would be an example of a very specialized build, if driving a car was instead using magic, he would be a sorcerer and I would be a wizard but under your chart there would be no way to accurately represent him, despite he being the more generic and inclusive example. As long as the book-learned wizard remains the default, there is no place in the class for the sorcerer. (And that is why I like the sorcerer class, it allows me to make characters that couldn't be created under the wizard class and it also allows to create the same characters that could)


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 17, 2013)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Eh... based upon how you structured your original idea-- the two axis of brains versus brawn and self action versus granted action... adding in another point just for "nature based" goes against everything you put forth.




Wooooahnonono. I simply meant looking at what I already have as a 3D diagram...liiiike...would look like a 8-sided die standing on end, I'm guessing.

No, adding another axis based on power course would be a completely different visual. I could do one of those...but not right now. 

Yes, everything you post is correct...and now I'm envisioning pages of flower/spoked wheel type graphs with...<shakes head> Yeah, not doin' that! lol.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Balesir (Oct 17, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> Wooooahnonono. I simply meant looking at what I already have as a 3D diagram...liiiike...would look like a 8-sided die standing on end, I'm guessing.



This is what I had in mind, yes.

To be clear, the specific "nodes" I gave were purely off the top of my head examples. It's clear that SD has thought through the current axes carefully - I'm not saying they are wrong, just that there seems to be *something* missing - and that could be represented on a third axis (making the "jewel" a D8 shape).

The "something" is not trivial to pin down; some ideas might be:

- the concept of _chi_ or _wu-shi_ - effortless (but effective) action, perhaps, for the monk and maybe also "nature" types (since it involves acting from unconscious instincts rather than intellectually or even consciously thought out strategies).

- The concept of sheer willpower for the psychic/psionic types. This might even represent an opposite to the above, since it involves the imposition of will rather than submission to natural instinct or "flow".

The first might also relate to music and dance (and hence the bard, to some degree), and to some of the "edges" of religion (avengers, perhaps). The second might touch on sorcerors (magic through will rather than knowledge).

Or, maybe, the axis should be "Drawing Power From The Self" versus "Drawing Power From The Environment"? Sorcerors find magic inside themselves, monks centre within. Druids, on the other hand, draw on their surroundings for power. Those in the middle - clerics and most wizards, for example - use specific bits of the environment to which they form a personal bond - the middle road. Some wizard variants, however, have drawn power from the world around them (Dark Sun's defilers and preservers, for example).


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 17, 2013)

That's good.

So now what do we do with it?


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 18, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> That's good.
> 
> So now what do we do with it?




Bow down and accept its supreme rulership of the multiverse.

Or just lookit the pretty colors.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Oct 18, 2013)

I find this very interesting. You hoist a flag, and while I have other ideas for some of the class names, I respect your choices because you do all the hoistin'.

Your crown jewel is aptly named and a true conversation piece as well as a great educational tool. While not perfect it's still brilliant. 

Mind you, perfect D&D is not D&D.


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 18, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> There is a huge difference between "I solve challenges using my magic" and "I solve challenges using my arcane knowledge of magic", the later excludes a big amount of characters the former embraces. (again more to that below)




Quite simply, there is not a "huge difference." There just isn't. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion with so deliberate an avoidance of fundamental comprehension. But I will listen to[read] the rest of your argument. *shrug* Maybe something will click.



KaiiLurker said:


> I argue that having the ability to control something doesn't really matches with knowing that same thing, under your premise and ample meaning of _knowledge_ (and to be honest is fair, such is the way people normally use the word knowledge, most people can safely exchange "I can cook" with "I know how to cook").




"Most people" not including, obviously, yourself. You want to see a distinction between saying "I can [make magic happen]" and "I know how to [make magic happen]." that warrants separate classes. 

There isn't one. They simply do not.

How 'bout this...Are Fighter and Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger separate because one "can [use weapons]" and another "knows how to [use weapons]"? No. 

Or, perhaps the more direct question/example would be: Do a Cleric of a God of Healing and a Cleric of a God of Battle warrant separate classes because one "can [pray to my god for magic powers]" and the other "knows how to [pray to my god for magic powers]?" Or even a Cleric of a pantheon vs. a Cleric of "beliefs/ideals" (i.e. in a game world where deities don't exist or religion is not broached)? They are all Clerics.



KaiiLurker said:


> *Every character solves challenges through something and knowledge*. and as consequence saying "magic and knowledge" is redundant, thus saying a *wizard solves challenges with magic* produces no dissonance to me. (see the next paragraph)




So, basically, all this goes away if I simply change the premise definiton of Wizard classes to be "they use magic" and drop the "knowledge." Then, all of the sudden, you're on board and it makes sense to you?! SOLD! Done. 



KaiiLurker said:


> Under the amended expression "using magic",




*rolls eyes* Yes, I _amended_ what I said originally from "who handles things primarily with" to the verb "to use". My bad for this obviously confusing change. Don't know what I was thinking.



KaiiLurker said:


> yes innate, learned, pacted, bestowed, cursed, inherited magic users are indeed a single class.




Excellent! So we're all clear and good then. 



KaiiLurker said:


> The problem is this second instance of "knowledge" is a using the more restricted definition of knowledge,




What second instance? I only use the term knowledge once. 



KaiiLurker said:


> the one that translates as lores, academical knowledge, erudite knowledge, mental knowledge all of them beyond simple know how, then this second instance of "using magic and knowledge" is more restricted as reinforced by your view of the Druid.




Mmmm. No. No it doesn't. You are reading implications into the term that are simply not meant. The presence of "knowledge" in the class description is a literary symmetry that I enjoy. I wanted/needed two things that Wizards do...to mirror "weapons and toughness" or "skills and trickery." Hence "magic annnnnd...Ah! _knowledge_, I guess."

This does not somehow mandate "book knowledge." It does not put  "natural know how" or "xyz Lore skills" in stone...it means they know  stuff the other three class groups don't. Yes, all classes have  knowledge of something...but the Wizard group, collective broad default  being referred to as Mages, have knowledge about things the other  classes do not and use this knowledge as a matter of course.

Not to get all bogged down in your invoking ["my view of"] the Druid, but maybe it'll help clear up...a Druid knows how to  travel around in the wilds, knows plants and animals, can read the weather,  etc... None of that, necessarily, and certainly not explicitly says "academic" or "erudite" knowledge.  Experience, yes certainly. Training or tutelage, perhaps. Books and  research, perhaps...though in a druid's case I'm inclined to think not.  But they have specialized knowledge of topics that other classes don't. 

Lemme ask...if I had instead said "magic and intelligence" would we be having this issue? I suspect so as we'd just be arguing over the term intelligence since "[everyone knows] Sorcerers are Charisma-based casters and by that [obviously] deserve their own class." 

"...magic and their minds..." ? "...magic and reason..." ? "...magic and _occult_ knowledge..." ? "...occult _experiences_..." ?



KaiiLurker said:


> Again conflating the know how with the know why.




I'm not conflating anything. You are...whatever the opposite of conflation is...deliberately and despite all argument to the contrary, when I am saying, point blank, repeatedly, "You _can_ make all of the sorcerer characters you want. Alllll different _kinds_ of sorcerers, if you like. They are not sufficiently different an archetype to warrant their own class, so they go [here]." 



KaiiLurker said:


> Having the know how means you have the skill to control or do something, Having the know why translates in a whole different set of abilities. For example my brother is a great driver,...-_snip driving/driver example_-




I have a very limited patience for "fantasy magic people should be like this cuz in the real world..." arguments. Not to put too fine a point on it...This kind of thing doesn't matter/apply to the creating or organizing of classes.

If a game presents me with a class: "Driver." What they do in the game is "drive."

And, then, a separate class: "Vehicular Facilitator." What they do in the game is..."drive." 

I'm setting it on fire. The "know how" vs. the "know why" are irrelevant. What the how or why _do_ is the same.

Bottom line, for me, this kind of "example" is not productive to these sorts of discussions.



KaiiLurker said:


> If there was a generic driver class he would be the archetypal driver and I would be an example of a very specialized build, if driving a car was instead using magic, he would be a sorcerer and I would be a wizard but under your chart there would be no way to accurately represent him,




Yes. Yes there is. Under my chart you and he both go under the Wizard group umbrella...who's default class is a Mage. Now, you and he can each "build" mages with different fluff to explain your driving ability. OR you can build something and call it a Wizard and he can build something and call it Sorcerer. But you're still sitting inside that dark blue box, because you are both drivers.



KaiiLurker said:


> As long as the book-learned wizard remains the default, there is no place in the class for the sorcerer. (And that is why I like the sorcerer class, it allows me to make characters that couldn't be created under the wizard class and it also allows to create the same characters that could)




Soooo...you can do the same thing or not [which still, I assert is merely fluff for spell-casting], but you can't have them considered within the same class group?

And absolutely NO WHERE IN HERE did I make, what I am assuming you mean, "[book-learning] wizard" the default. Again, you have distinct blinders on/bias against the term (as you insist on having with "knowledge").

Used here,  quite clearly I thought, the Wizard _class group_ is those classes which rely or_ use_ or "handle things primarily with" arcane magic/spells. The class group, as defined is the broadest of those archetypes, inclusive of all types of arcane magic-users who are not filtered with some abilities/skills from other classes.

That's allllll "Wizard" or "Mage" is here. Colored with books, wands, at will, cuz mommy was a dragon, or dancing naked under a moon...it's all the same shtick. That's what they do, how they take on adventuring.

And no, I'm not now conflating "the how" and "the what." They're "what they do" and "how" are two different ways of saying the same damned thing.

Best I can do for you...and those who agree/think like you, would be (since I guess it isn't obvious) change the "Witch" type, applicable to all of the spellcasters in the Wizard quadrant, to "Sorcerer" as one could argue an "innate [arcane] spellcaster" can be made out of any of those class archetypes (that are actual archetypes warranting their own class).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go delete "knowledge" from the initial post so this can all go away and we need not ever speak of it again.


----------



## ArturoMoreno (Mar 13, 2019)

But the Warlock gets his powers from an otherworldly entity. How is he not on the left side?

And what would be there instead?
The Sorcerer probably, since his magic comes from within...?


----------

