Are 'nature based' classes redundant?

[Necroticplague]

Just heading through the books, and a thought struck me: why do the druid and the ranger exist? It seems like both of the related concepts could be handled more easily by slight modifications to other classes. A druid could just easily be a cleric with the right domains, since both use identical methods of arcane casting. Meanwhile, the paladin and ranger share very similar concepts (fighters+half-divine-caster), so it seems like they simply could have made the paladin a slightly more broad "divine warrior", which could encompass both the paladin as it is now (Divine Warrior of Good and Law), and the ranger as it is now (Divine Warrior of Plants and Animals). Thoughts?

[Eldan]

Isn't that what the Druid was in earlier editions anyway?

[atemu1234]

Not particularly; just because multiple classes fulfill the same niche, doesn't make them redundant. For example, just because I could run a cleric with the nature and plant domains doesn't give me the ability to turn into an animal or even exceptionally good at travelling through nature.

[StoneCipher]

I don't really think so. While you could probably stretch Cleric to BE a druid, it would be a long stretch. But, if an ACF was implemented for Cleric to give up armor proficiencies or something in exchange for some nature based things it would be an easier sell.

However, modern fantasy does dictate that a cleric is a cleric and a druid is a druid.

[Flickerdart]

For that matter, why bother with the paladin when you can have a cleric/fighter multiclass? Or why bother with clerics when you can just have a wizard with an alternative spell list?

D&D has a lot of conceptual overlap. Deal with it.

[Psyren]

Yeah, you certainly could have a "druid" that is essentially a cleric archetype, and replaces Channel Energy with Wild Shape etc. but the thematic space is nice for other reasons. For instance, spell and item design. When they come up with something new, the designers can think "this is for nature-based classes" and then pare down further to "this is for full-casting nature-based classes." Then they can think "should this be a domain spell so clerics can get it? Or maybe available to clerics at a higher level, but to druids and nature-domain clerics earlier? Or should this be druid-only?" (Poison is an example of the second one.) Or the reverse - "should this be primarily for clerics, but druids are able to do it if they're powerful enough, but not as efficiently?" (Heal is an example of this.)

It creates the differences in kind that are necessary for choice in games to feel real.

[Red Fel]

What others have said. Even putting ACFs aside and looking solely at the base classes, each of the three you list offer something unique.

Cleric gives you divine casting plus domains. Some nature domains can certainly give you a feel of a spiritual worshiper of nature, sure. But they're still missing bits.

Druids give you Wild Shape. In any thread on Druids (or CoDzillas generally), Wild Shape comes up. Why? Because it's insane. It's an incredibly powerful ability, on its face, even without ACFs or PrCs that modify it further. It's also something a Cleric won't get, at least not with the same level of effectiveness and flexibility.

Ranger is also unique. As a half-casting class, it focuses more on its martial aspects, which is great for players who don't want to deal with casting. In conversations about optimization, this can sometimes be overlooked - not everyone wants to play a primary caster. Rangers get a mini-Druid animal companion, partial casting progression, and a combat style that provides them with feats. Not quite as powerful as a Fighter's feat selection, not quite as powerful as Druid or Cleric casting, but a nice little hybrid that occupies a somewhat flavorful niche.

Yes. Druids, Rangers, and Clerics are all divine casters. And if you stop your analysis there, Cleric is probably the best at purely spellcasting. But if you stop your analysis there, you're only looking at a single column on the class table.

No. They aren't redundant.

[GreyBlack]

Just heading through the books, and a thought struck me: why do the druid and the ranger exist? It seems like both of the related concepts could be handled more easily by slight modifications to other classes. A druid could just easily be a cleric with the right domains, since both use identical methods of arcane casting. Meanwhile, the paladin and ranger share very similar concepts (fighters+half-divine-caster), so it seems like they simply could have made the paladin a slightly more broad "divine warrior", which could encompass both the paladin as it is now (Divine Warrior of Good and Law), and the ranger as it is now (Divine Warrior of Plants and Animals). Thoughts?

The ranger has existed since LotR, so pulling it is out of the question. People like Aragorn, and Aragorn is a different fictional character than Lancelot. Where Lancelot has a huge code of morals to live up to, Aragorn can be more flexible.

As for the druid vs cleric, someone hasn't read the class abilities in a while. The cleric becomes a beacon of faith and holiness for his/her deity/ideal. The druid, on the other hand, turns into a bear and eats your face to stay an apex predator. Those are two very different interpretations of "divine caster" reflected in mechanical abilities.

[Necroticplague]

The ranger has existed since LotR, so pulling it is out of the question. People like Aragorn, and Aragorn is a different fictional character than Lancelot. Where Lancelot has a huge code of morals to live up to, Aragorn can be more flexible.Aragon also didn't have animal companions or spells, to my memory, so the ranger doesn't really reflect him that well.He seems more like a fighter.


As for the druid vs cleric, someone hasn't read the class abilities in a while. The cleric becomes a beacon of faith and holiness for his/her deity/ideal. The druid, on the other hand, turns into a bear and eats your face to stay an apex predator. Those are two very different interpretations of "divine caster" reflected in mechanical abilities.
The druid is a beacon of his ideal as well. Its just that his ideal is nature, which can include turning into a bear, just as a cleric can decide to turn into an angel.

[Der_DWSage]

I'd actually say it's kind of a reverse of the issue you have in the title. It's not that nature-based classes are redundant, it's that some classes are a too broad. See:Wizard and Cleric, primarily.

I won't belabor the point from there, but they generally tried to make sure that every archetype of magic-based fantasy persona could be reached with those two, and they had a fair amount of success there. However, it does get to the point where other classes feel redundant because of them-why have a Dread Necromancer when you could have a Necromancy-focused Wizard? Why have a Warmage when you could have an Evocation Wizard? Why have a Paladin when you can smite with a Strength-Domain Cleric?

They did good work with that particular bit of design philosophy, but it went a long way towards making other classes seem a little redundant.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Thoughts?

My first thought was pretty much "You can have my druid when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.":smalltongue:

As for the necessity, play both. You'll notice they feel rather different, and that's why they're seperate classes. Just because you can reduce the concept to a few words that both fit onto the cleric (or paladin) chassis doesn't mean they're comparable in actual play.

[eggynack]

On top of the issues already mentioned, another is just direct spell list comparison. The druid and cleric, while they do overlap in some ways, have lists that are very different, more than could be accounted for by a cleric picking up the plant and animal domains or something. In particular, the druid has a focus on form changing, battlefield control, summoning, and maybe mass destruction, while clerics are more focused on healing, buffs, and debuffs. The cleric has a strong leaning towards raising the dead while the druid can't do that at all without some real book diving. I think the druid is actually somehow more capable of teleportation, while the cleric has access to plane shift that the druid lacks. This is on top of Psyren's note that things pop up at different levels.

What I'm saying is, underneath the flashing and obvious domain/wild shape comparison, there exist a million subtle differences. These aren't meaningless differences either, because they're primarily how these classes interact with the world around them. If you constructed some massive trades, losing domains for wild shape, and I guess proficiencies for the companion, and maybe curing for summoning, and added a druid domain or two (don't know how that's working with the trade, but whatever), then that still wouldn't be nearly enough. You wouldn't encompass even a fraction of the little issues, like the fact that the cleric has great minionmancy options with planar ally while the druid needs to rely on stuff like animate with the spirit, or that druids are locking down whole battlefields with entangle starting at level one.

[(Un)Inspired]

So true. It's the same for other classes too. A wizard is just like a fighter except with different class features and BAB.

[Der_DWSage]

So true. It's the same for other classes too. A wizard is just like a fighter except with different class features and BAB.

I'm so sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Red Fel]

The druid is a beacon of his ideal as well. Its just that his ideal is nature, which can include turning into a bear, just as a cleric can decide to turn into an angel.

Back up. Let's be clear.

At a certain level, the Cleric can learn a spell that can temporarily change him into something bigger, such as an angel (or, in one of my favorites, an Avatar of Bahamut). That's high-level, isolated-use stuff.

The Druid, at 5th level, turns into progressively bigger animals, multiple times per day, up to 1 hour per Druid level, no spell preparation required. That's a lot of versatility in there. Eventually, that grows to include plants and elementals. With feats and PrCs, they can increase their Wild Shapes per day, add new creatures (such as Dragons and, my favorite, Cryohydras), or even change into multiple forms with a single Wild Shape use. Oh, and changing shape heals them.

If our standard is simply (1) it casts spells, and (2) it can change shape, let's get rid of all spellcasters altogether, including Clerics and Druids, and replace them with Wizards and Sorcerers. Give them access to any spell list they like. After all, arcane casters can Shapechange, so what's the difference?

That's my point. At the end of the day, most abilities are reproducible by any caster with the right spells. Jump higher, hit harder, see better, turn into a dragon, a spell can do it for you. So it's rare that a class has an ability that spells can duplicate, but not as well. Druids have that.

Druids can turn into a Bear who rides a Bear while summoning Bears. Bears everywhere, forever. Even the Cleric of Bears can't pull that off.

[Necroticplague]

So true. It's the same for other classes too. A wizard is just like a fighter except with different class features and BAB.

And an entirely different concept. My point of all of this is that the concept for the cleric and druid of "caster who draws there power from a greater power",are way to close too each other to justify both's existence, with the only real difference being that clerics can draw it from pretty much anything, while druids have to draw it from nature.

[Psyren]

Aragon also didn't have animal companions or spells, to my memory, so the ranger doesn't really reflect him that well.He seems more like a fighter.

Brego :smallwink: Yes I know he was a movie creation.

Just kidding. But Aragorn was still pretty nature-y, what with the wandering the wilderness as Longstrider, getting his elf on, and all the Athelas stuff. It's certainly a different paradigm than Lancelot, Beowulf or Conan.

Besides, he wasn't the only Ranger in Tolkien, or even the most "Ranger-y" of the lot. In many ways he was the least Ranger-like among them, given that he was secretly mankind's king and eventually stepped out of the shadows to assume that title/live in civilization.


The druid is a beacon of his ideal as well. Its just that his ideal is nature, which can include turning into a bear, just as a cleric can decide to turn into an angel.

The cleric needs spells to do that; for a druid, changing form is as (super)natural as breathing, to the point that eventually they even learn to alter their base forms on the merest whim. Clerics are innately tied to the world - they have to be, because that is the whole reason for their existence, being an anchor/conduit for their deities and the metaphysical here in the material.

[(Un)Inspired]

And an entirely different concept. My point of all of this is that the concept for the cleric and druid of "caster who draws there power from a greater power",are way to close too each other to justify both's existence, with the only real difference being that clerics can draw it from pretty much anything, while druids have to draw it from nature.

So wait, you arguing that they're too close conceptually, not mechanically?

[Scipio_77]

On top of the issues already mentioned, another is just direct spell list comparison. The druid and cleric, while they do overlap in some ways, have lists that are very different, more than could be accounted for by a cleric picking up the plant and animal domains or something. In particular, the druid has a focus on form changing, battlefield control, summoning, and maybe mass destruction, while clerics are more focused on healing, buffs, and debuffs. The cleric has a strong leaning towards raising the dead while the druid can't do that at all without some real book diving. I think the druid is actually somehow more capable of teleportation, while the cleric has access to plane shift that the druid lacks. This is on top of Psyren's note that things pop up at different levels.

What I'm saying is, underneath the flashing and obvious domain/wild shape comparison, there exist a million subtle differences. These aren't meaningless differences either, because they're primarily how these classes interact with the world around them. If you constructed some massive trades, losing domains for wild shape, and I guess proficiencies for the companion, and maybe curing for summoning, and added a druid domain or two (don't know how that's working with the trade, but whatever), then that still wouldn't be nearly enough. You wouldn't encompass even a fraction of the little issues, like the fact that the cleric has great minionmancy options with planar ally while the druid needs to rely on stuff like animate with the spirit, or that druids are locking down whole battlefields with entangle starting at level one.

Yes, this. Druids are generally more offense-tuned casters than clerics.

Also, there are obviously the in-game differences. Druids and clerics might not be treated the same even if they serve the same deity/order/church/circle/whatnot.

[Necroticplague]

So wait, you arguing that they're too close conceptually, not mechanically?

Yes. There is some similarity in mechanics, but those aren't what I was thinking of.

[eggynack]

And an entirely different concept. My point of all of this is that the concept for the cleric and druid of "caster who draws there power from a greater power",are way to close too each other to justify both's existence, with the only real difference being that clerics can draw it from pretty much anything, while druids have to draw it from nature.
I think you're just thinking of things the opposite of the way you should. The "concept" is whatever character you bring to a given table. The stuff written in the book, about how this one's supposed to be the toughest beat-stick around, or how that one's supposed to have a sacred grove, it's all irrelevant once a character is at a table. Unless you're running something like a paladin, it's pretty unlikely that you're cross-referencing your actions against what the book says your character's supposed to be like.

What's really important, then, is mechanics. The concept of a druid, as presented in books and relative to what's actually used in game, is a character capable of shifting forms or calling storms with but a thought. It's a character that can level a town faster than most classes out there, and it's got a powerful ball of meat to toss at enemies. It's a character that can summon massive beatsticks whenever it chooses, and occasionally those beatsticks can even do something outside of direct combat. Those things, and many more, are why the druid exists in the book. Everything else is mostly window dressing. Sure, some of the text there might inform your decision making about what your character acts like, but it doesn't necessarily have to beyond the most basic level. Fluff is mutable. Mechanics are far less so.

Edit: Also, the ranger feels more like an archer to me than anything else involving a close connection with nature. Paladins, with their focus generally on melee combat, aren't a good substitute.

[Psyren]

Yes. There is some similarity in mechanics, but those aren't what I was thinking of.

But the differences (and similarities) in mechanics are a product of the conceptual differences. You can't divorce the two.

Ask yourself this - if nature clerics are so similar to to druids, why can't they wild shape? Why can they wear metal while druids can't? Why is it so hard for a designer to imagine them developing these ability? Go beyond the obvious answers of "the rulebooks don't let them" (effect, not root cause), "wildshape is the druid's niche" (mechanically true, but again, not related to concept) or even "wildshape + cleric buffs would be OP" (druid buffs are no slouch either) - and think about the concept underlying the two classes. What is the point of a nature cleric? Why would a nature deity want to have both clerics and druids instead of just the latter?

The cleric's entire role, as I said in my previous post, is to be a metaphysical bridge between civilization and philosophy - between the real and the ideal. In the case of nature, that philosophy is "there's room for both us to live together." So nature clerics tend to emphasize dogma in which mankind's relationship with nature can be mutually beneficial - like farming/cultivation (Chauntea), hunting/culling (Gwaeron), protecting nature's beauty (Mielikki/Silvanus), or simply the meditative benefits only a stroll through the wild places can provide (Eldath/Shaundakul.) Druids, by contrast, are not there to be a representative for society - indeed, they rarely interact with society at all, and almost always out of necessity and for brief periods of time before returning to the nature they love, once whatever crisis has passed. There are some Druids that do live near or even within civilization, of course, but ultimately they know where their true loyalties lie, and if the wild places overgrew that entire city and crumbled it to dust, they would not shed a tear.

So ask yourself - how would turning into a tiger, or a rhino, or a falcon, or a shark, or even a deer or tree, help to lessen that separation between man and wild? At best it would be off-putting for the townsfolk or commoners to even know their parishioner could undergo that transformation, much less watching him do it. It would undermine their entire message by setting themselves apart from a society that cannot do those things. In a city, even unused it can cause all kinds of trouble with the authorities - "there was a rat at the crime scene, was it you?"

And wild shape itself, fluffwise, implies a connection to nature so strong that such an individual would have difficulty even relating to the cosmopolitan members of society. Druids in fiction are often portrayed as aloof or indifferent to society's problems, since they know that even if the entire city were paved over, life would find a way to go on (and might even be better for it); wild shape is a mechanical way of reinforcing that separation. I understand nature better than you ever could, because I've lived in the forest as a she-bear for hours on end. These druids wouldn't go out and level the city themselves (not the good or neutral ones anyway) but they wouldn't shed a tear over its loss either.

[sonofzeal]

But the differences (and similarities) in mechanics are a product of the conceptual differences. You can't divorce the two.

Actually, you can, and easily. Joker and Batman can both be "Rogues", as can Father Brown, Sherlock Holmes, and Conan the Barbarian. Concept is what you make of it. Mechanics are tools for achieving that end.

All that matters in the end is how your character acts and what they can do. The designer's intent is irrelevant compared to what you make of it.

[Chronos]

There are variant rules in Unearthed Arcana for running the game with only four classes, two of which are almost identical: Warrior, Expert, Arcane Spellcaster, and Divine Spellcaster. Toss in the appropriate feats (many of which are added in those variant rules), and you can sort of emulate any character concept you want with them.

Taking it a step further, there are game systems which don't even have distinct classes at all. You just build everything completely free-form via modular bits roughly similar to feats or skills. Those systems work, too.

Or, of course, you can go the other direction. As 3rd edition went on, some folks decided that the existing classes didn't offer enough variety, and created new classes. A few covered genuinely new conceptual space, but most were just new ways of doing things you could already do: Take any character who's a Dread Necromancer, for instance, and you could just as easily realize that character concept (not precisely the abilities, but the concept) with a necromancy-specialized wizard, or with a sorcerer who just happened to choose a lot of necromancy spells.

In the end, it all comes down to taste. Do you want a small number of classes which you can customize to what you want, or do you want a large number of classes such that something similar to what you want already exists? Either is a perfectly valid way to game. The creators of D&D made one decision, but other decisions are possible.

[squiggit]

Why stop there? Couldn't we just have two classes, fighty guy and magic guy?

[Psyren]

Actually, you can, and easily. Joker and Batman can both be "Rogues", as can Father Brown, Sherlock Holmes, and Conan the Barbarian. Concept is what you make of it. Mechanics are tools for achieving that end.

All that matters in the end is how your character acts and what they can do. The designer's intent is irrelevant compared to what you make of it.

What *I* make of it is irrelevant when designing a sourcebook for mass appeal. What matters is what the masses make of it. And if you ask the masses what class Conan is, "rogue" is not going to be the most popular answer, whether or not Psyren or sonofzeal believe otherwise.

[Red Fel]

Pretty much agreeing with everything Psy said. I'd like to take a different angle, though.

What's the difference, conceptually, between a Cleric and a devoutly religious Wizard?

Mechanically, there are obvious differences - one prays for spells and turns Undead, one reads a book and has one-sided conversations with an owl - but I'm talking conceptually.

The Cleric is the physical servant of a spiritual being or ideal. The devout Wizard sees himself the same way. Frankly, a Cleric of an arcane magic deity, like Boccob, would very strongly resemble a Wizard with a deep faith in Boccob.

It's like others have said - you really can't try to compare concepts, because the concept is brought to the table by the player. The class itself is a bag of stats and abilities. That's all we can really compare.

I could build a character who foams at the mouth, smashes unattended inanimate objects, and thirsts for blood and violence. He's a Cleric of Gruumsh. I could build a character who devotes his life to recovering and studying lost arcane spells, who spends his days in libraries and his nights in a magical laboratory. He's a Cleric of Wee Jas. I could build a character who devotes his life to a flawless mastery of the sword, whose life consists only of martial training and discipline. He's a Cleric of St. Cuthbert. The concept is what I bring to it; it's not inherent to the class.

[Necroticplague]

Why stop there? Couldn't we just have two classes, fighty guy and magic guy?

Why stop there? Couldn't we just have one class, a guy, then pick from a list of traits? Yes, I do like point buy systems, what gave it away?

[sonofzeal]

What *I* make of it is irrelevant when designing a sourcebook for mass appeal. What matters is what the masses make of it. And if you ask the masses what class Conan is, "rogue" is not going to be the most popular answer, whether or not Psyren or sonofzeal believe otherwise.

Au contraire. What the masses make of it is irrelevant to my gameplay as I sit down with my friends, or when you sit down with yours.

If Conan is my character, whether or not he's got levels of Rogue is between me and the character sheet. What matters for the group, and for the game, is the narrative produce, and I have creative control there, not the designers. Nobody from WotC is going to bust in my door if my city slicker with anger issues has a level of Barbarian, and we aren't going to see an angry mob outside my house if I give Conan levels of Rogue.

You don't have to divorce the mechanics and the designer's concept. But you can. It's not hard. That's all I said.

[Extra Anchovies]

What *I* make of it is irrelevant when designing a sourcebook for mass appeal. What matters is what the masses make of it. And if you ask the masses what class Conan is, "rogue" is not going to be the most popular answer, whether or not Psyren or sonofzeal believe otherwise.

Nitpick: Mongoose Publishing's d20 Conan game gave him three levels of Thief (I may be misremembering, because his stats are in the one Conan sourcebook I didn't bring to college). Granted, that's next to 15 of Barbarian, but whatever.

[Troacctid]

Why stop there? Couldn't we just have two classes, fighty guy and magic guy?

You'd be missing stealthy guy. Fighter, Mage, Thief is the classic trio. That's essentially what the three UA generic classes represent.

[squiggit]

You'd be missing stealthy guy. Fighter, Mage, Thief is the classic trio. That's essentially what the three UA generic classes represent.

Naw that's just fight guy with more skills.

[Troacctid]

Naw that's just fight guy with more skills.
Stealthy means avoiding fights. Anyway, I don't make the archetypes, they're a classic trio.

[Psyren]

Nitpick: Mongoose Publishing's d20 Conan game gave him three levels of Thief (I may be misremembering, because his stats are in the one Conan sourcebook I didn't bring to college). Granted, that's next to 15 of Barbarian, but whatever.

Yeah, I meant primarily, but thanks.



You don't have to divorce the mechanics and the designer's concept. But you can. It's not hard. That's all I said.

And I never said you couldn't. I just said there is a reason why "the mechanics and the designer's concept" start out the way they do.


Naw that's just fight guy with more skills.

More skills and typically, less sturdy, which leads to him having a different approach to problem solving (i.e. "flanks and the rear" as opposed to head-on.)

[sonofzeal]

And I never said you couldn't. I just said there is a reason why "the mechanics and the designer's concept" start out the way they do.

...


But the differences (and similarities) in mechanics are a product of the conceptual differences. You can't divorce the two.

...technically, yes. You never said "you couldn't", just "you can't". For whatever that's worth.

I think we're just going around in circles now though.



And, chalk me up in the "fighter / sneaker / caster" camp. Lines can blur, but that's the triad.

[Psyren]

...technically, yes. You never said "you couldn't", just "you can't". For whatever that's worth.

You can't when you're talking about why things are the way they are, which was the point of this thread. I wasn't referring to how you choose to play at your table. Hopefully that clears things up for you.

[Extra Anchovies]

Regarding the setup being fighter/caster/thief: I actually see the combat setup as Assassin/Tank/Buffer/Sniper/Blaster (melee picking, melee crowd control, healing/support, ranged picking, and ranged crowd control, respectively), with a good party containing a Buffer, at least one pick class, and at least one CC class.

Out of combat the lines get a lot more blurred. I'd be down for a two-class (or even one-class, with magic abilities redone as various at-will things) system where everyone gets a pile of skill points, because needing a dedicated skillmonkey is annoying sometimes.

[Threadnaught]

Hasn't this thread been done before with what looks like exactly the same OP?

I seriously had the worst case of deja vu the moment I started reading this thread.

[NotScaryBats]

If D&D were more of a "Base Classes + Archetype = Character" type game, then I think this point stands. If a person picked "Fighter" and then said "what kind of fighter do I want to be -- an Archer, Gladiator, Knight, etc" then Ranger could just be an archetype of the Fighter/Caster class.

As it is, we have a Base Class for Dread Necromancer, when Necromancy specialized Wizard exists, just to scratch the surface, so I don't think D&D is the game where Ranger and Druid are redundant.

[(Un)Inspired]

If D&D were more of a "Base Classes + Archetype = Character" type game, then I think this point stands. If a person picked "Fighter" and then said "what kind of fighter do I want to be -- an Archer, Gladiator, Knight, etc" then Ranger could just be an archetype of the Fighter/Caster class.

As it is, we have a Base Class for Dread Necromancer, when Necromancy specialized Wizard exists, just to scratch the surface, so I don't think D&D is the game where Ranger and Druid are redundant.

Actually what you are describing is kind of like 2nd edition. You pick warrior, priest, wizard or thief and then pick a subcategory. Warrior sub-classes were fighter, ranger and paladin; priest sub-classes were cleric and druid, wizards were all the school specializations; and thief had rogues and bards.

[Flickerdart]

As it is, we have a Base Class for Dread Necromancer, when Necromancy specialized Wizard exists
Don't forget Death Master, True Necromancer, necro-focused Clerics, Pale Master...

[Chronos]

Nitpick: Thieves and bards were rogues, not the other way around.

One of my 2nd-edition characters was a LN "professional treasure hunter", who would get really offended at being called a "thief", because he wasn't. He was just a guy who had learned to do the same things thieves do.

[(Un)Inspired]

Nitpick: Thieves and bards were rogues, not the other way around.

One of my 2nd-edition characters was a LN "professional treasure hunter", who would get really offended at being called a "thief", because he wasn't. He was just a guy who had learned to do the same things thieves do.

Derp! Thanks for the catch Chronos. That was a foolish mistake of mine.

[SiuiS]

Just heading through the books, and a thought struck me: why do the druid and the ranger exist? It seems like both of the related concepts could be handled more easily by slight modifications to other classes. A druid could just easily be a cleric with the right domains, since both use identical methods of arcane casting. Meanwhile, the paladin and ranger share very similar concepts (fighters+half-divine-caster), so it seems like they simply could have made the paladin a slightly more broad "divine warrior", which could encompass both the paladin as it is now (Divine Warrior of Good and Law), and the ranger as it is now (Divine Warrior of Plants and Animals). Thoughts?

Dilution. The Druid and ranger both began their lives as more than nature themed classes; the ranger especially has been reduced. A ranger was once a divinely gifted champion of mankind who was a paragon of the crafts of survival and homesteading, traveling the liminal line between the chaos of monster infested wilderness and the lawful civilized lands, keeping beasts from pouring in and expanding the borders. Now he's a fighter what works in jungles maybe.

The Druid was a ripoff of romance novel pagans, but still more distinct than "priest, but, like, nature priest" that we have now.

[ericgrau]

Wildshape, skills.

Paladin OTOH doesn't get much that's both special and unique besides cha to saves. Smiting is just more damage like anything else, while the other misc. class features aren't that special. The fluff is overly specific and could be covered by others. Once you get better caster/non-caster multi-classing you have little need for one.



Out of combat the lines get a lot more blurred. I'd be down for a two-class (or even one-class, with magic abilities redone as various at-will things) system where everyone gets a pile of skill points, because needing a dedicated skillmonkey is annoying sometimes.
Magic User: As wizard but all full caster spells are on list. Cha based. No familiar or school specialization. Keep all bonus feats and expand the level 5/10/15/20 feats to allow most casting feats, but unlike Warrior it may only be a feat.

Warrior: As fighter but pick a major special ability (like rage or improved rage) or any non-casting feat (not only fighter bonus feats) on even levels and level 1. Minor special ability on other odd levels (a sneak attack die perhaps?). Trivial abilities grouped into fluff-rich packages and made minor abilities. Major, minor and trivial to be sorted by someone less lazy than me. Many have a minimum level and/or other abilities as pre-reqs.

Skills: All skills are class skills. Everyone gets 4+int skill points a level.

Multi-classing: Every 2 Warrior levels improves your casting as if you were one Magic User level higher. These free levels may not exceed your actual Magic User levels. So a Warrior 6 / Magic User 2 only has a caster level of 4 not a caster level of 5. He can cast 2nd level spells but not 3rd.

Warrior special abilities cover nearly everything, even wildshape. Keep in mind it may cost multiple special abilities to gain the improved versions of these abilities. And they may have pre-reqs that include anything, including Magic User level(s).

Done.

[Wardog]

Nitpick: Mongoose Publishing's d20 Conan game gave him three levels of Thief (I may be misremembering, because his stats are in the one Conan sourcebook I didn't bring to college). Granted, that's next to 15 of Barbarian, but whatever.

Also, I think the Age of Conan MMO has "barbarian" as a sub-class of rogue (along with "ranger" and "assassin").

(I may be misremembering though - I downloaded the game when it went free to play, but it made my laptop crash).

[Extra Anchovies]

Magic User: As wizard but all full caster spells are on list. Cha based. No familiar or school specialization. Keep all bonus feats and expand the level 5/10/15/20 feats to allow most casting feats, but unlike Warrior it may only be a feat.

Warrior: As fighter but pick a major special ability (like rage or improved rage) or any non-casting feat (not only fighter bonus feats) on even levels and level 1. Minor special ability on other odd levels (a sneak attack die perhaps?). Trivial abilities grouped into fluff-rich packages and made minor abilities. Major, minor and trivial to be sorted by someone less lazy than me. Many have a minimum level and/or other abilities as pre-reqs.

Skills: All skills are class skills. Everyone gets 4+int skill points a level.

Multi-classing: Every 2 Warrior levels improves your casting as if you were one Magic User level higher. These free levels may not exceed your actual Magic User levels. So a Warrior 6 / Magic User 2 only has a caster level of 4 not a caster level of 5. He can cast 2nd level spells but not 3rd.

Warrior special abilities cover nearly everything, even wildshape. Keep in mind it may cost multiple special abilities to gain the improved versions of these abilities. And they may have pre-reqs that include anything, including Magic User level(s).

Done.

Oooh, I like. I may use the "everyone is a spontaneous caster" variant from UA to keep things balanced, not sure.