Forum:Classes by edition

Forums: Helping Hand > Classes by edition

---

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

---

I'm starting this thread to accumulate the classes and their sub-classes that we want to recognize by giving them an category. Can someone add the 4th edition classes? Did I miss any in supplements that we actually want to include? Players Handbook 1st edition:

• Cleric
  • Druid
• Fighter
  • Paladin
  • Ranger
• Magic-User
  • Illusionist
• Thief
  • Assassin
• Monk

Unearthed Arcana 1st edition

• Cavalier
  • Paladin
• Cleric
  • Druid
• Fighter
  • Barbarian
  • Ranger
• Magic-User
  • Illusionist
• Thief
  • Acrobat
  • Assassin
• Monk
• Bard

Player's Handbook 2nd edition

• Warrior
  • Fighter
  • Paladin
  • Ranger
• Wizard
  • Mage
  • Specialist Wizards
    • Abjurer
    • Conjurer
    • Diviner
    • Enchanter
    • Illusionist
    • Invoker
    • Necromancer
    • Transmuter
• Priest
  • Cleric
  • Specialty Priests of Specific Mythoi
  • Druid
• Rogue
  • Thief
  • Bard

Player's Handbook 3.5 edition

• Barbarian
• Bard
• Cleric
• Druid
• Fighter
• Monk
• Paladin
• Ranger
• Rogue
• Sorcerer
• Wizard

—Moviesign (talk) 02:24, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

So how should we classify these? I just want to make sure the system works for all of the above.

—Moviesign (talk) 02:24, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with organizing by specialist wizard or specialty priest, as these just seem to be variants of the standard classes. I also don't think Druid (1e) needs to be placed under Cleric (1e), as the flavour (if not the class) is going to be very different in each edition.

3.5 Edition base classes: (ignoring those from other settings and variants)

• DMG: Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior
• Dungeonscape: Factotum
• Complete series: Favoured Soul, Hexblade, Ninja, Samurai, Scout, Spirit Shaman, Shugenja, Spellthief, Swashbuckler, Warlock, Warmage, Wu-jen
• Miniatures Handbook: Marshall, Healer, Warmage
• Psionics: Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder, Ardent, Divine Mind, Lurk
• Heroes of Horror: Archivist, Dread Necromancer
• Incarnum: Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist
• Player's Handbook 2: Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight
• Tome of Magic: Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer
• Tome of Battle: Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade
• Dragon Magic: Dragonfire Adept

But most of these new classes might only have one example NPC, if that, so categories can be created when needed, or not at all.

4th Edition base classes: Player's Handbook 4th edition

• Cleric
• Fighter
• Paladin
• Ranger
• Rogue
• Warlock
• Warlord
• Wizard
• Forgotten Realms Player's Guide: Swordmage
• Players Handbook 2: Avenger, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Invoker, Shaman, Sorcerer, Warden
• Players Handbook 2: Ardent, Battlemind, Monk, Psion, Runepriest, Seeker

And numerous Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies

However! In 4th edition, it seems classes, paragon paths, and epic destinies are only meant for PCs. NPCs for battle are all custom creatures, defined by combat role. Jarlaxle Baenre, for example, is a Level 21 Elite Skirmisher. The rest that I've seen and recall are completely unstatted, just names and descriptions. Since as a Wiki we cover NPCs, the 4th edition list should actually be:

• Artillery
• Brute
• Controller
• Lurker
• Minion
• Skirmisher
• Soldier

I'm leaving out Elite, Solo, and Leader, since they're more like properties than class-like things.

See, this is why I said this would be too complicated. :)

— BadCatMan (talk) 08:41, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Yikes!!! Hehe, man 4e is really complicated... hmmm, the NPC classes are like the 3e Dragon or Undead classes... techically, since we have started down the road of speicifcs, we probably should keep going on this path, but I agree with BadCat: specially wizards and clerics should just be under the basic classes and druid is it's own class... which means, I need to make a Scouts 3e category for Jezz the Lame.

-Darkwynters (talk) 17:55, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Specialty Priests should not be given their own individual classes. But we already have categories for the specialist wizards, like Category:Diviners. If we are going to make classes for Scout and Lurker, for example, then why not keep the eight wizard specialists? They should also be put in Category:Wizards of course. Are any of the 3.5, or 4e classes going to be subclasses of anything?

—Moviesign (talk) 19:22, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I made my first NPC 3e class, Warriors, which is only a 3e class... but is also the 2e parent cat of rangers, paladins, and fighters... I thought maybe of making Warriors the parent class of all these "soldier" types, but the fighter category is huge... thoughts on organization... or do you like my Category:Warriors fix and Category:Warriors of 9th level category?

—Darkwynters (talk) 20:20, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

How about call it Warriors (3e) and make a Warriors (2e) to be the parent of rangers, paladins, and fighters. Warriors then becomes the parent of Warriors (2e) and Warriors (3e)?

—Moviesign (talk) 21:34, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

I spruced up Category:Warriors a little bit. I think we need to leave some guidance for those that will come after us. Should we give an example? Do you want me to attempt the cat-class table that I mentioned before? Or, should we just instruct users the proper way to classify a character/person/NPC? Or both?

—Moviesign (talk) 01:05, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Specialty Priest seems like a subclass or variant of Cleric (2e), so just include them in Clerics (2e).

Similarly, Specialist Wizards are just a subclass or variant of the Wizard, so these should also all just be categorised as Wizards.

However, Illusionist, Diviner, Transmuter, Necromancer and so on all have flavour, history and roles attached in the setting, so we should keep categories for them, but independent of edition and class for ease. That is, a 3e Wizard (Transmuter) can be categorised in "Wizards (3e)" and "Transmuters", while a 1e Magic-User (Illusionist) can go under "Magic-Users (1e)" or what-have-you and "Illusionists". That's my feeling, anyway. It keeps the usefulness of the specialist categories and reduces the complexity a tad.

I think that Category:Warriors is a bit confusing as it contains three 2e classes and one 3e NPC class. If you want to use it as an umbrella category, then perhaps it should contain all fighting classes from all editions?

I'm a bit lost in all these categories right and not sure where you are up to in them. If you tell me something that needs doing, then I'll get to work on it or have my bot do it.

— BadCatMan (talk) 05:08, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed... Illusionists links to the edition of wizard... okay, I kind of agree about the warriors... because it is an all encompassing category... 4e is very tricky... see Classes... I guess we could used the Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Psionic cats from 4e... maybe...

CLASSES

1st edition:

Martial classes

• Cavaliers (1e)
• Fighters (1e)
• Rangers (1e)
• Thieves (1e)
  • Assassins (1e)
  • Thief-acrobats (1e)

Divine classes

• Clerics (1e)
• Paladins (1e)

Arcane classes

• Magic-users (1e)
  • Illusionists (1e)

Primal classes

• Barbarians (1e)
• Druids (1e)

Psionic classes

• Monks (1e)

2nd edition:

Martial classes

• Fighters (2e)
• Rangers (2e)
• Thieves (2e)

Divine classes

• Clerics (2e)
• Paladins (2e)

Arcane classes

• Bards (2e)
• Mages (2e) or Wizards (2e)
  • Abjurers (2e)
  • Conjurers (2e)
  • Diviners (2e)
  • Enchanters (2e)
  • Illusionists (2e)
  • Invokers (2e)
  • Necromancers (2e)
  • Transmuters (2e)

Primal classes

• Druids (2e)

3rd edition:

Martial classes

• Fighters (3e)
• Knights (3e)
• Rangers (3e)
• Rogues (3e)
• Samurai (3e)
• Scouts (3e)
• Swashbucklers (3e)

Divine classes

• Clerics (3e)
• Favoured souls (3e)
• Paladins (3e)
• Shugenjas (3e)

Arcane classes

• Bards (3e)
• Sorcerers (3e)
• Wizards (3e)
• Warlocks (3e)
• Warmages (3e)
• Wu-jen (3e)

Primal classes

• Barbarians (3e)
• Dragon shamans (3e
• Druids (3e)
• Spirit shamans (3e)

Psionic classes

• Ardents (3e)
• Divine minds (3e)
• Lurks (3e)
• Monks (3e)
• Psions (3e)
• Psychic warriors (3e)
• Soulknives (3e)
• Wilders (3e)

NPC classes

• Adepts (3e)
• Aristocrats (3e)
• Commoners (3e)
• Experts (3e)*
• Warriors (3e)

Unknown

• Beguilers (3e))
• Duskblades (3e)
• Hexblades (3e)
• Ninjas (3e)
• Spellthieves (3e)

4th Edition

Martial classes

• Fighters (4e)
• Rangers (4e)
• Rogues (4e)
• Wardens (4e)
• Warlords (4e)

Divine classes

• Avengers (4e)
• Clerics (4e)
• Invokers (4e)
• Paladins (4e)
• Runepriests (4e)

Arcane classes

• Bards (4e)
• Sorcerers (4e)
• Swordmages (4e)
• Warlocks (4e)
• Wizards (4e)

Primal classes

• Barbarians (4e)
• Druids (4e)
• Seekers (4e)
• Shamans (4e)

Psionic classes

• Ardents (4e)
• Battleminds (4e)
• Monks (4e)
• Psions (4e)

NPC classes

• Artillery (4e)
• Brutes (4e)
• Controllers (4e)
• Lurkers (4e)
• Minions (4e)
• Skirmishers (4e)
• Soldiers (4e)

Thoughts?

—Darkwynters (talk) 20:24, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Nicely sorted.

I think we can do without the "Martial classes", "Divine classes", etc. over-categories. Using that terminology, things like the Duskblade and the Hexblade are arcane warrior classes, the Ranger is a primal warrior class, and so on. There's too much overlap, and it descends more from some 4th edition terminology (those are all the 4e power sources, I think). And it lacks the "Skill-Monkey classes". :)

It's an unnecessary, extra level in the category tree. All the classes of an edition will fit happily on one edition page — we get up to 200 entries per category page after all.

It looks like you want to keep the 1e and 2e specialist wizards separate? But not for 3e?

— BadCatMan (talk) 01:17, July 21, 2013 (UTC)