This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Author Topic: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?  (Read 3652 times)

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12288
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2022, 06:22:08 AM »
Ranger/Hunter/Scout seems to fit best as the 5th wheel in actual play, IME. Stealthy but fairly tough scout/archer type PC seems to work well to enhance the core 4 without stepping on toes.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2022, 08:30:37 AM »
I think if you are going to expand, you need to start with a different core 4.  Namely, fighter, ranger, wizard, druid.  Ranger with no spells, more stealth.  Visualize those in a circle. 

Then slot either the cleric or the paladin between the fighter and druid.  Slot the thief between the ranger and wizard, expanding a little on the thief magic user scroll use to give them the wizard spells the ranger used to have.  Or put an old-school bard there if you prefer, though I don't like the "bard" name on that class, as I prefer it to be an off-shoot of the druid.

There are other ways to do it, of course, including different visualizations besides a circle.  For old-school, I'd prefer to keep it down to no more than six classes per race, with the above being the human options.  So there might be 10-12 classes, but they 4-6 that any given race can use are on some kind of clear circle or other simple diagram.

Point being, to expand is to change the core 4 in some way.  Expansion works best when it takes that into account.

RebelSky

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • R
  • Posts: 141
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2022, 06:20:43 PM »
Hard to say to me as I'm not OSR player, but I guess considering Thief is more narrow class there - Bard as jack would take it all.

Otherwise probably I'd keep core 4 but make like 4 combinations of combat/social/exploratory classes to combine into more specific modes.

This is how the classes in Hyperborea seem to be designed. It has the 4 core classes and a bunch of sub-classes that are thematically both combinations of the 4 yet do fill in a niche the 4 core can't really fill.

WWN goes the other route. It has 3 core classes, 1 hybrid class, and a bunch of customization options players can choose to take the core classes and make them his or her own.

Nephil

  • Newbie
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 41
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2022, 07:02:59 PM »
Paladin, the mixture of Fighter and Cleric that is different than either of them. The holy warrior with special powers that helps him defeat the wicked.

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 5213
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2022, 08:04:31 PM »
Paladin, the mixture of Fighter and Cleric that is different than either of them. The holy warrior with special powers that helps him defeat the wicked.
I find the cleric and paladin archtypes overlap very heavily, more than almost any pair of classes.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2022, 08:13:38 AM »
Paladin, the mixture of Fighter and Cleric that is different than either of them. The holy warrior with special powers that helps him defeat the wicked.
I find the cleric and paladin archtypes overlap very heavily, more than almost any pair of classes.
I agree with Pat for once. It became especially clear in 4E and 5e where every class used the same attack progression that a cleric was just a paladin with better spells but worse weapons and a paladin was just a cleric with worse spells but better weapons… and in AD&D a fighter was just a subpar paladin without all the attribute requirements (as if the high stats weren’t already their own reward).

Frankly, what we really need are just three classes; warrior, expert and mage (with a required specialization that strongly restricts what any one mage can cast) and easy multiclassing between the three.

Ex. The cleric is a mage 2 (healing/buffing spec) warrior 1. The paladin is a warrior 2 mage 1 (buffing/smiting spec).

The bard would be a warrior 1, expert 1, mage 1 (buff/enchantment spec). The thief is an expert 3, but the 3e and later rogue is either an expert 2, warrior 1 or a warrior 2, expert 1 depending on focus.

The only reason we need 4 classes in D&D is because healing was split off from the mage and every system of non-magical hit point recovery is so slow that you basically needed the healer class to not be stuck recovering for weeks after every fight.

Clean up the damage/recovery system and the need for a dedicated healer class goes away and you’ve got a much better split in terms of archetypes and just about any other the other D&D classes is just a mix and match of warrior/expert/mage.

The Spaniard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2022, 11:24:01 AM »
I'd say the Ranger.

Joey2k

  • Anarcho-anarchist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • I punch SJWs
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2022, 01:38:59 PM »
Another vote for Ranger. Ranger actually replaces Cleric in my core 4
I'm/a/dude

Zalman

  • RPG Evangelist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2022, 02:05:11 PM »
I think if you are going to expand, you need to start with a different core 4.  Namely, fighter, ranger, wizard, druid.  Ranger with no spells, more stealth.

These are my personal core 4 as well, not even sure I feel the need to expand from there.
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

ShieldWife

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
    • https://www.youtube.com/user/ShieldWife
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2022, 09:56:50 PM »
I think it’s going to depend on how flexible and customizable the current 4 classes are. If  a magic user can learn healing magic as well as offensive or utility magic, maybe even sacrificing magical might for martial ability, then you don’t need a distinction between a cleric and a mage. In theory, you don’t need classes at all, but classes are fun, so let’s go with them and see how we can cover various D&D classes with combinations of the big 4.

Barbarian: a fighter who sacrificed heavy armor for rage, maybe gets some nature related skills too.

Ranger: a combination rogue and fighter, with rogue skills being very nature focused instead of urban. If they get magical abilities, we might need to look at the druid.

Druid: a nature themed cleric. They give up armor usage in exchange for certain abilities like shape changing or animal control.

Warlock: a cleric of an evil deity/demon lord/etc. Alternatively, a wizard with a specialization in evil magic or some kind of feats to represent demonic powers.

Paladin: A fighter with some cleric levels.

Bard: rogue and wizard combined, maybe with a fighter level for a more combat focused character.

Swashbuckler: a dexterity based fighter with perhaps some rogue levels. Alternatively, a combat focused rogue.

Sorcerer: a wizard with some thematic differences or slightly different way of casting or learning spells.

Oracle: a cleric with a particular weakness and focus.

Monk: this one is tricky. They are mostly a fighting class. Are they then primarily a fighter with a bizarre specialization in hand to hand fighting that can’t use armor but gets a bunch of weird special abilities? The monk is quite different from the fighter but also so specialized and unique that it can’t be used as the foundation for other character concepts either. This one could be trouble.

Alchemist: a wizard whose spells are chemical themed. Alternatively, if a cleric is a set of abilities rather than a worshipper of gods, then an alchemist could be a cleric who heals with potions rather than divine miracles.

Witch: like a warlock or druid

Summoner: cleric or wizard specializing in summoning magic.

Knight/Samurai/Cavalier: specialized fighter

Assassin/Ninja: specialized rogue



So far, it seems like the class that is the hardest to model with the main 4 is the monk.

Jam The MF

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2022, 10:23:29 PM »
I think it’s going to depend on how flexible and customizable the current 4 classes are. If  a magic user can learn healing magic as well as offensive or utility magic, maybe even sacrificing magical might for martial ability, then you don’t need a distinction between a cleric and a mage. In theory, you don’t need classes at all, but classes are fun, so let’s go with them and see how we can cover various D&D classes with combinations of the big 4.

Barbarian: a fighter who sacrificed heavy armor for rage, maybe gets some nature related skills too.

Ranger: a combination rogue and fighter, with rogue skills being very nature focused instead of urban. If they get magical abilities, we might need to look at the druid.

Druid: a nature themed cleric. They give up armor usage in exchange for certain abilities like shape changing or animal control.

Warlock: a cleric of an evil deity/demon lord/etc. Alternatively, a wizard with a specialization in evil magic or some kind of feats to represent demonic powers.

Paladin: A fighter with some cleric levels.

Bard: rogue and wizard combined, maybe with a fighter level for a more combat focused character.

Swashbuckler: a dexterity based fighter with perhaps some rogue levels. Alternatively, a combat focused rogue.

Sorcerer: a wizard with some thematic differences or slightly different way of casting or learning spells.

Oracle: a cleric with a particular weakness and focus.

Monk: this one is tricky. They are mostly a fighting class. Are they then primarily a fighter with a bizarre specialization in hand to hand fighting that can’t use armor but gets a bunch of weird special abilities? The monk is quite different from the fighter but also so specialized and unique that it can’t be used as the foundation for other character concepts either. This one could be trouble.

Alchemist: a wizard whose spells are chemical themed. Alternatively, if a cleric is a set of abilities rather than a worshipper of gods, then an alchemist could be a cleric who heals with potions rather than divine miracles.

Witch: like a warlock or druid

Summoner: cleric or wizard specializing in summoning magic.

Knight/Samurai/Cavalier: specialized fighter

Assassin/Ninja: specialized rogue

So far, it seems like the class that is the hardest to model with the main 4 is the monk.


That's pretty much how I see the classes, comparatively.  I'm not a big fan of monks in the midst of medieval fantasy, though.  I never even consider playing a monk, myself.

Thief: I hide in the shadows.
Fighter: I swing with the sword.
Cleric: I heal my friend.
Magic User: I cast fireball.
Monk: I know Kung Fu.
BBG: I killed your master.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2022, 10:29:45 PM by Jam The MF »
D&D isn't getting any better.  We need to look to the past.

Dinosaurs are real.

ShieldWife

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
    • https://www.youtube.com/user/ShieldWife
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2022, 10:42:04 PM »
That's pretty much how I see the classes, comparatively.  I'm not a big fan of monks in the midst of medieval fantasy, though.  I never even consider playing a monk, myself.

Thief: I hide in the shadows.
Fighter: I swing with the sword.
Cleric: I heal my friend.
Magic User: I cast fireball.
Monk: I know Kung Fu.
BBG: I killed your master.
Yeah, I have the same feeling about the monk as well. I’ve never actually played one and it’s been many years since I’ve even seen one played. They only really fit into certain kinds of games.

Aglondir

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1295
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2022, 02:19:38 AM »
Frankly, what we really need are just three classes; warrior, expert and mage (with a required specialization that strongly restricts what any one mage can cast) and easy multiclassing between the three.

Ex. The cleric is a mage 2 (healing/buffing spec) warrior 1. The paladin is a warrior 2 mage 1 (buffing/smiting spec).

The bard would be a warrior 1, expert 1, mage 1 (buff/enchantment spec). The thief is an expert 3, but the 3e and later rogue is either an expert 2, warrior 1 or a warrior 2, expert 1 depending on focus.

The only reason we need 4 classes in D&D is because healing was split off from the mage and every system of non-magical hit point recovery is so slow that you basically needed the healer class to not be stuck recovering for weeks after every fight.

Clean up the damage/recovery system and the need for a dedicated healer class goes away and you’ve got a much better split in terms of archetypes and just about any other the other D&D classes is just a mix and match of warrior/expert/mage.

You are correct.

True 20 did this in 2005.

Trinculoisdead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2022, 02:45:42 AM »
Elves!

Reckall

  • Junghian alchemist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
Re: Feeling open minded.... Which "Other" Class fits in best with the Core 4?
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2022, 03:21:38 AM »
Sorcerer/Favoured Soul, to get rid of Vancian Magic.

Actually, I would only keep four:

Fighter
Thief
Sorcerer
Favoured Soul

Let the characters start at, let's say, level 3, so to "specialise" as seen before in this thread ("Hey! I'm F2/T1! I'm a Ranger!)
For every idiot who denounces Ayn Rand as "intellectualism" there is an excellent DM who creates a "Bioshock" adventure.