>>96755519
Bards are Rogue wizards

Magic User
Non-Magic User

>>96755519
Druid is just a Cleric/Wizard
Armor is between a Cleric's heavy and a Wizard's robes. Has a bunch of healing like a Cleric, but also has a bunch of elemental and shapeshifting magic like a Wizard.

Bard is Rogue+Wizard like >>96755562 mentioned
Monk is basically Fighter+Rogue
Warlock is Rogue+Cleric
Artificer is either Wizard+Fighter or Wizard+Rogue depending on if it's an armored guy with a warhammer or an alchemist throwing explosives.

The classes that don't fit in as mixes of others are things like Barbarian and Sorcerer, where it's literally just Fighter/Wizard but flavored as natural talent/instinct rather than training/study.

>82DND

>>96755519
>Magus
>Martial+Arcane
No? Spellsword, or some other flavor of arcane gish, magus if anything is just a higher tier wizard.

>>96755562
where do the healing abilities come from?

>>96755626
>Druid is just a Cleric/Wizard

where do the plant spells come from?

>>96755676
Wizard.

>>96755519
What the fuck is a "Shaman" suppose to be in this context and how does it relate to monk?

>>96755519
clerics are fighter/clerics
>>96755887
his only understanding of class fantasies are from world of warcraft

>>96755988
>his only understanding of class fantasies are from world of warcraft
>image has 28 classes
>of which only 9 can be argued to be Warcraft classes
So, to recap, no more than a third of the classes in the image are Warcraft classes and roughly a third of Warcraft classes aren't represented in the image. Are you sure you've staked out your position properly?

I don't hate the concept of a sliding scale or filter that molds two archetypes together. I would just need enough time to really flesh out and make them both balanced and unique, both being equally important.

>>96755519
Fighting man
Magic user
Cleric
Thief

>>96755519
>warrior = physical combat
>mage = spellcasting
>prowler = stealth and survival
that's the basis
other classes break from the mix of these
>warrior + mage = warmage
>mage + prowler = trickster
>prowler + warrior = skirmisher
also, the know-it-all class, call it expert, which is essentially a non-class: specialized in skills (player's choice), can develop desired abilities, but won't never match the combat/spellcasting/thievery of the other class at the same level
no classes that depends of deity worshipping (you can have access to divine abilities independently of the class you choose)
no classes split based of magic schools (choose one or more magic schools and then call yourself whatever you desire)
no classes based off ki usages (you develop ki abilities in detriment of skills/main ability)

>>96755519
Hmm. Where could we fit Incarnum (soul stuff) in there?
Replace Shaman with Totemist?
>arcane+music = magician
Eeehhhh.

>>96755519
this is just what 5e became and a massive reason why I fell out of it.

>>96755519
Realistically, why would I want to assemble all of the common RPG classes, given they hardly ever make any sense within their implied world in terms of both narrative and mechanical cohesion?
I'd rather just make a game with the modular character choices I want to include, instead of having !Conan and !Gandalf's adventures in !Fortnite to take down !Mother Brain and save !Narnia.

>>96755519
What would adding a 3rd dimension look like?
arcane arcane arcane is wizard.
arcane arcane divine would be an archivist?

>>96755519
1. stop thinking so much about mechanics
2. they are not even mechanically just fighter/clerics or druid/thieves ("rogues") or fighter/druid/thieves. If you make a fighter/cleric its different from paladin.

Rogues are not thieves or even rogues. They are the ninja class with different description text and another set of weapons. Sneak attack deals damage more than the warrior classes can and if we let the rogue/thief deal "flank attack bonus damage" aka "sneak attack damage" then how much should a single class fighter deal when flanking? The rogue is a ninja and a warrior. The rogue class is a peculiar abomination that in effect destroyed the thief role as all you do is seek flank and sneak attack.
They had plans for a ninja and made the class, the thief was useless in combat in 2e AD&D and if you dryly convert him (try it) to 3e/3.5e he is useless, but good as an npc hireling class.

Forget thieves and rogues and bards as core classes. Thieves are useless, the trapfinding belongs to the ranger and so does the sneak part and backstab, lockpick belongs to the dwarves and bards are at 5e (gets up to level 9 spells) nothing but full mages (enchanters) along with some other class combos.

Classes you need; remove sneak attack in general
Fighter
Ranger (traps, sneaks, backstabs like 2e)
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Mage (wizard)

thief/rogue roll exclusives go to ranger and other classes or races as default or optional
Bard can be replaced by a fighter/mage single class. Or a fighter "storyteller" skald so he can have the "bardic" knowledge and something else you may consider essential. Bards are just good for nps, some guy sings and performs etc.
Sorcerer, Warlock, artificer; superfluous but optional by setting
other classes, variants, prestige classes, kits or whatever you call them can be optional but the Core ones are the above. The thief/rogue and the bard ruined the soup.

>>96757566
D&D has been a disaster for the nerd race.

>>96755519
get the gunslinger for the artificer-linked warrior and you are done

>>96755629
gish is a retarded made up term that no one would even know what it means even in context without it being explicitly defined.

>>96755519
>how many different base classes would you need to assemble all of the common RPG classes (including artificer and psion)?
First thing we need to establish is that "common RPG classes" are not the same thing as D&Ds classes, especially 5es. We need to establish what are the common classes first, then from there we can try to create all the other classes.

But I can tell you its going to end in failure because youre an idiot who thinks certain classes can be distilled into two others, like the paladin. A fighter/cleric is very much not a paladin, lacking the paladin's unique class features and why its a separate class with its own identity. The same is true of psion, artificier, ranger, and many other classes.

Teh idea that you can distill certain classes down to fundamental "classes" that they are a mix of is a sign of idiocy and the inability to remember the differences. Its why so many here hate classes, they are literally idiots who don't understand the differences in mechanics and lore and so throw hissy fits about those dumb classes.

Also, what the fuck is this image? Half of those are made up homebrew shit that doesn't make any sense for their power source. Seriously, what the fuck does a reveler do? And a fucking Jester is not an expert music man.

>>96755629
Pathfinder uses the term Magus as an arcane gish. Yes it doesn't mean that, but only pedants and autists really care.

>>96756076
Fighting man
Magic user
Healer*
Thief

>>96755519
>Expert^2
>Rogue
what is this bullshit

>>96758946
I thought it was slang for a, you know, a lady's you-know-what.

>>96759387
gash

File: .png (38 KB, 1534x828)

38 KB PNG

>>96755519
ACKS 2 already figured it out. Every class is a combination of exactly four points in the following five categories:
>hit dice
>fighting
>"thievery" (actually a catchall for class-specific powers)
>divine spellcasting
>arcane spellcasting
Optionally, you can add zero to four nonhuman racial points on top of the class points. A nonhuman class with four normal class points and four racial points is extremely powerful but has a level cap of just eight, so it can't even reach the "king" tier of "adventurer conqueror king" (since level nine is where you can get a stronghold). A nonhuman class with four normal class points and zero racial points still has a level cap of 13, vs. the level 14 that a human class can achieve.

>>96755566
It's worked for me in my games.

>>96759429
This is stupid
>class powers arbitrarily categorized as "thievery"
>arbitrary delineation between 'divine' and 'arcane' spellcasting
Unless it was designed to be compatible with D&D ( why would you do that? D&D already exists ) this just sounds like a retarded preservation of D&D sacred cows for no good reason.

>>96755642
the rogue side stole them from the clerics

>>96759557
>Arbitrary delineation
NTA but ACKS also actually backs that delinitation by giving you tools to make your own classes of magic (Including an option where clerics and wizards are casting from the same options called Esoteric) and an in setting justification for the difference, that being all magic calls on the Logos found in all living things.
Clerics just centralize the Logos distribution through their god, while Wizards John Galt it and use their own internal reserves/that of magic creatures while shrieking autistically about government infringement any time you tell them to stop casting enchantment spells on bar maids.

Thieves skills meanwhile are based because only thieves get them and even magic can't really replicate them particularly well, because fuck wizards being able to do everything better than the rest of the party put together at high levels.

>>96759429
>Fighting
>not called Conqueror
>Thievery
>not called Adventurer
>Divine
>not called King
>Arcane
>not called System

missed opportunity desu

File: Capture.png (14 KB, 726x206)

14 KB PNG

>>96755519
How about no base classes but 6 base element combinations, of which 15 core classes are represented?

>>96761198
maybe, but the psionic column doesn't make a lick of sense

>>96761198
Too dnd brained

File: Screenshot 2025-10-15 at (...).png (88 KB, 1820x214)

88 KB PNG

What about stats

>>96762428
charisma/tech is technopath and charisma/shadow is host

>>96758987
>A fighter/cleric is very much not a paladin
back in BCMI d&d 'Paladin' was one of the fighter option for name level and it was just a fighter with some cleric abilities

>>96762428
>>96762486
Charisma/Tech could also be Influencer

>>96759429
Note that this table is not the full story. Specifically, fighting value has several components:
>Armor selection (heavy, medium, light, very light, none)
>Weapon selection (unrestricted, broad, moderate, narrow, restricted)
>Extra fighting styles (3, 2, 1, 0)
>Fighter damage bonus (melee, missile, both)
>Attack throw progression
>Cleaves

Assassin is listed as hit dice 1, fighting 2, and thievery 1. But in reality it is more like hit dice 1, fighting 1+5/6, and thievery 1+1/6, because it reduces its armor selection from "unrestricted" to "broad" as a tradeoff for an extra class power. (One point in "thievery" grants four class powers.)
Barbarian is listed as hit dice 2 and fighting 2. But in reality it is closer to hit dice 2, fighting 1+2/6, and thievery 1+4/6, because it gets four extra class powers in exchange for reductions in armor selection, fighting-style selection, weapon selection, and fighter damage bonus.
Et cetera.

Twelve classes: Heir, Page, Knight, Maid, Seer, Mage, Thief, Rogue, Sylph, Witch, Prince, and Bard.

>>96762713
you forgot

>lord
>muse
>nick
>huss
>douche
>waste

>>96762701
Whoops, those fractions don't make sense. Whatever.

>>96755519
Stop using classes.

>>96755519
Rangers are a subclass of fighter, dipshit.