Organizing the Classes by Theme

[LumenPlacidum]

I've seen some discussion of late of whether classes have a place, or whether people think other classes should be introduced. I wanted to share something which I think is an interesting way to think about class design.

Schtick - Every class should have something that they're supposed to be good at. This determines an overall approach to what kinds of abilities they get. If I asked you to label the "warrior" classes, you'd probably say barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger; that's what I'm talking about. These classes have a primary approach to the mechanics of the game which seems to be "use weapons to make 'em dead and be tougher than they are"

Rationale or Origin of Powers - Every character gets their skill from some aspect of their past. I don't mean things as specific as "My dad was the merchant who brought the sword to the lands of..." I mean, general statements like "I picked up skills naturally from my past". With many of the classes that currently exist, they dip side to side into alternative origins based on subclass. That muddies the waters a bit, but sometimes there's still a strong theme.

Other than just presenting this to you, I also wanted to ask if there are any major schticks or origins that you can think of to go in my table.

With Schticks along the left axis and Rationales along the top... we have:

	Born with it	Worked hard to learn	I stand for something	I am but a representative	My strength is the strength of others	I care little for the things that hold others back	I use special tools
Warrior	Barbarian, Fighter	Fighter, Ranger	Paladin	?	?	Barbarian	Artificer, Fighter
Skirmisher	Rogue	Monk, Ranger, Rogue	?	?	Rogue	Rogue	Rogue
Magician	Sorcerer	Wizard	?	Warlock	Bard	?	?
Mystic	?	Monk	Cleric, Druid, Paladin	Cleric	?	?	?
Sundry Skills	Bard	Artificer, Ranger	?	?	Bard	Rogue	Artificer

A little more explanation in detail: You see Paladin under "I stand for something" and "Warrior". What I'm saying is that part of the concept of the paladin is that they are a warrior and that the reason why they are better than others at being a warrior than most other people is because they are upheld by the strength of their convictions! You see Rogue under the conjunction of "Skirmisher" and "I care little for the things that hold others back". This means that part of the concept of the rogue is the idea that they might be a better skirmisher than most other people and that this is, in part, due to the idea that they're willing to fight dirty, stabbing people in the back when the opportunity presents itself. I'm trying (although likely failing - that's a lot of cells) to represent core conceptual links here. I'm sure that this community can help me flesh out the table.

You see a '?' under "I use special tools" and "Magician". This is because I don't intrinsically connect the reason why any of the current casters are good at being magi with the fact that they have access to and use specialized tools. I suppose an argument could be made for Artificer being here, or Wizards due to their books. But, I'm just less sure that Artificers are really Magicians in the first place. They're half-casters, and it seems to me that the theme of the class is less to have spells and more to have gimicky tools that allow them to apply them to other scenarios (see "Sundry Skills"). In the case of Wizard, it seems to me that the core idea is that the Wizard's concept is that their spells come from their own understanding of the spells in the book rather than from the book itself.

The presence of Bard under "Born with it" and "Sundry Skills" represents the concept that has mechanically been represented as bardic knowledge or the Jack of All Trades ability, implying that the bard has just seen some **** and has a bunch of random knowledge and half-skills to reflect the idea that they might just pull anything out of their pocket.

I think there really is an open space under "My Strength is the Strength of Others" and "Warrior". A class dedicated to being a battle commander is tangentially touched on by some subclasses in D&D 5e, but doesn't really seem to be embraced by any one of them. I could imagine arguments for Bards, Clerics, Fighters, and Paladins, but there still seems to be a lot of room.

Please keep in mind that these associations are, to me, thematic ones. This is not a question of whether or not the theme has been implemented mechanically in D&D 5e.

So, what am I missing? Should I have associations that I'm ignoring or failing to see? Should I not have associations that I think I see? Should there be other main Schticks? Other main Rationales/Origins? Is this all just a silly waste of time?

[meandean]

I just don't feel that how you got your abilities is the main question. Should all "alien" superheroes have a version of Superman's powerset? Should all superheroes with an "industrial accident" origin have a version of Spider-Man's powerset? Wouldn't you normally classify Superman along with other strong/invulnerable heroes, and Spider-Man along with other agile/intellectual heroes, regardless of how they got that way?

(Even stranger would be a "rationale" classification, where Wonder Woman is grouped with other "inspire others by my example" heroes and Batman is grouped with other "childhood tragedy" heroes. I'd actually like to see someone attempt to make that that list... but no one in my lifetime has ever suggested it's a useful way to think about things.)

In D&D terms, isn't it just as plausible that you're a "metamagic" caster because you study a smaller number of spells in great detail? Why can you only do metamagic if you have "magic in your veins", and why does everyone with "magic in their veins" have to do metamagic? To me, the first level of classification is what you do. Then next level down is how you do it. Then next level down is how you as an individual approach that chosen task differently. This suggests the system where you start off as Warrior/Mage/Expert (or whatever), and then specialize more as you advance.

That being said, I also don't see why people flip out about all this, when it's an area where most players intensely dislike change, and the current system works fine. But if I were starting over, which is basically a useless hypothetical situation, that'd be my take.

[TyGuy]

I think rationale/origin is too constraining and doesn't add anything mechanical. It steps on the toes of lore/backstory/RP. What's it matter if barbarians have innate super natural power or anyone can train/ undergo a ritual to be one?

I've had these thought exercises and I think too much has been done and play tested to rework 5e. In the future I think a more build-a-bear approach would be lovely. Simply start with picking one of fighter, mage, hybrid (fighter and mage). From there prerequisites and a buffet of choices makes for a system that can hit just about every archetype a person can think of.
Heavy fighter + specializing in martial special abilities = battle master
Heavy fighter + holy magic = paladin
Heavy fighter + dark magic = dark/death knight
Agile fighter + dark magic = shadow archer
Etc.

[TigerT20]

Surprisingly, the PHB entry for Sorcerors heavily implies that the majority of them gain magic after birth. So you may want to branch them out a bit. I suppose getting a blood transfusion from a dragon would count as "my strength is the strength of others"? I think that means "yay teamwork!" though. Maybe "I am just a representative"? Or you could just extend the "I was born with it" catergory.

As for wasting time: I feel sorting this out could make for some excellent groundwork when homebrewing. Classes in the same Shtick should obviously have similar playstyles, but Rationales/Origins should determine how they achieve it or some kind of shared feature - like how Clerics and Paladins share Channel Divinity, or Bards and Rogues share Expertise.

[LumenPlacidum]

I think I would argue that the classes inherently imply things about your lore, RP, and backstory in the first place. I'm just trying to make a generalization to see if there can be a moment of creative inspiration for someone to be able to take advantage of a perceived void and to fill it either by making a character that they're interested in or homebrewing a class.

With regards to specializations like metamagic because you've narrowed your focus and can more closely control the parameters of those spells, I think that would work with any magician. The fact that in 5e only sorcerers get that ability is not salient to my discussion, since I'm less interested in the mechanical connection of classes to abilities in this thread than I am interested in the connection of class to themes. In truth, some concept of narrowing focus to enhance what you're really good at seems like a good reason to have subclasses. Although, I admit that the idea of someone who narrows their scope to specialize does seem a little more well-suited description-wise to "I worked really hard." Someone who's "Born with it" has no intrinsic reason to be bad at anything! Someone who has to work at what they do has to spend time, which is a limited resource.

Mostly it's just a spark for conversation :P

[KorvinStarmast]

Surprisingly, the PHB entry for Sorcerors heavily implies that the majority of them gain magic after birth.

Which argues for a Placental Origin for Sorcerers, rather than a Draconic origin. (Dragons hatch from eggs)

[clash]

I think I would have the vertical axis be the how and the horizontal be the what instead. So have warrior, magic, skill. Then on the horizontal something like skirmisher, controller, damage, tank, support. I think it worked demonstrate the same holes but in a more mechanical way. So for example rogue is primarily a skill based skirmisher. Barbarian a warrior based tank. Cleric could fit under magic tank and magic support and magic healing depending on how you build it. We might be hard pressed to fit something under warrior support though as an example.

[KorvinStarmast]

Organizing the Classes by Theme

I honestly think that you are overcomplicating this.
1. Go to the basic rules.
2. See those 4 classes.
3. Those are the 4 core roles in a party.
4. Everything else is variations on that theme, and will allow for differing amounts of overlap between PCs in a given party.
Note: I have yet to see a 12 person party in D&D 5e. Seen more 6 & 7 person parties than I'd care to play in; my sweet spot for party size is 4 or 5; five seems to me the 'perfect' one. One to cover each primary role and then a free agent.

All in all, I don't find your taxonomy useful. But, thanks for putting in the time and effort to make that table, it takes some work to do that.

[Amechra]

Could you please clarify what the difference between a "magician" and a "mystic" is?

[LumenPlacidum]

I suppose I'm creating a separation there because there's a separation in D&D between "arcane" and "divine". In my head, a mystic is one who does what they do for the sake of becoming one with something more than themselves. With clerics, it's their religion; with druids, it's with nature; with monks, it's with enlightenment. A magician is someone who does magic. This isn't necessarily how I was thinking about them when I put classes into place, but I might go and update it when I'm done with my work :P