D&D General 6 Core Classes: You are in charge

[Reynard]

What is really interesting to me in this thread is how people apply specific caster classes to different stats than 5E or previous editions tie them to.

 

[Fifinjir]

STR: Knight (focus on techniques, weapons, and armor. Can also stab the ground for earthquakes at high levels.)
DEX: Scavenger (not married to the name, but I wanted to evoke “will make use of anything they can get a hold of to survive.”)
CON: Mutant (has the transformation based barbarian subclasses, and monks are kinda mutant-y for using ki to make their bodies do impossible things. I could also go for Ascetic for similar barbarian/monk fun.)
INT: Sage (knowing things guy, does magic through alchemy and reagents.)
WIS: Prophet (carrying cleric, druid, and warlock; the invocations can easily fit for the former two concepts.)
CHA: Wyrd (mental mutant. Carries sorcerers and psions.)

 

[soviet]

Hypothetical: you have been put in charge of a new D&D PHB, but you have a mandate: there shall be but 6 core classes, each tied to one of the 6 Ability Scores (ie that's their "prime stat"). You are allowed to create however many subclasses that will fit in the book, but you MUST maintain 6 core focused on individual stats.

What are your 6? What subclasses do you include?

Mine with some subclass notes:

STR: Fighter. Subclasses focused on weapon mastery versus heavy armor versus niche archetypes (like a mounted knight).

DEX: Rogue. Subclasses include both thief things and scouty things.

CON: Ranger but really "survivalist". I would tie both the beast master and the berserker to this class, plus maybe a Tarzan variant.

INT: Wizard. Instead of schools, the Subclasses would focus on fictional and literary archetypes, from Gandalf to Harry Potter to Dresden.

WIS: "Cleric" though I hate the term. "Channeler" maybe? Anyway, this class covers clerics, druids, warlocks and paladins in its archetypes. If you get your powers from some otherworldly entity, this is your class.

CHA: Sorcerer. If you power comes from within, this is your class. Bards would be a sorcerer subclass, not wizard, and I might be inclined to warrior Monks into this space. The problem is Charisma is really wonky as a stat and simultaneously covers guile and straight up id. It's a tough one. Maybe the monk is a Con subclass?

Anyway, what would you do?

STR: Fighter. Soldier (armoured melee) subclass and an Archer (ranged skirmisher) subclass.

DEX: Rogue. Thief (urban) subclass and a Scout (rural) subclass

CON: Barbarian. Berserker subclass and Primal Beastmaster subclass.

INT: Wizard. Elementalist subclass and Illusionist subclass.

WIS: Cleric. Guardian (trad armoured cleric caster) subclass and Paladin/Crusader (more melee focused) subclass

CHA: Bard. Swashbuckler (martial focused) subclass and Troubadour (spellcasting focus) subclass

 

[Jack Daniel]

What is really interesting to me in this thread is how people apply specific caster classes to different stats than 5E or previous editions tie them to.

That's because it's really easy to make the argument for any type of spellcasting being tied to any one mental stat.

Why are wizards traditionally Int based? No particular reason, beyond "something, something spellbooks" and "that's what Gary Gygax decided to name the magic-user stat." Wisdom makes more sense off the cuff since wizard and wisdom are etymologically related words; and it's easy to make the leap to Charisma if your conception of a wizard is informed by spirit-traffickers like Dr Faust and Prospero, or the vast, vast majority of historical occultists.

Why are clerics based on Wisdom? Because Gygax settled on "Wisdom" over "Cunning" as the term for the cleric stat. But literature is also full of scholarly, learned priests ("cleric" is even related to the word "clerk," an old term for a scholar or student, a connection that exists precisely because of the close association between the medieval church and universities) and persuasive, charismatic pulpit-preachers ("charismatic" in the modern sense of having a commanding personality, not to be confused with the older, religious sense of the word — gifted/graced/favored (by the Holy Spirit) in Koine Greek — that fits clerics even better!).

 

[ezo]

Why are wizards traditionally Int based? No particular reason, beyond "something, something spellbooks" and "that's what Gary Gygax decided to name the magic-user stat."

Well, I think it clearer than that. Intelligence in AD&D is representative of I.Q. as well as other aspects, like learning ability, memory, etc. The ability to understand something, learn it, and such is really tied to Intelligence, and obviously Gygax thought this would apply to learning spells as well.

Just look at the description from the 1E PHB:

Why are clerics based on Wisdom? Because Gygax settled on "Wisdom" over "Cunning" as the term for the cleric stat.

As for clerics:

I would think Gygax's use of "enlightenment" is in reference to spirtual or religious enlightenment, however judgement and intuitiveness are also useful to the cleric concept. Even a more general usage of enlightenment, applied to the self, nature, etc. is appliable in many ways and why is makes more sense for Druids as well.

Finally, if we look at his original Charisma:

We don't find anything that really relates to Clerics.

Given all that, I am not saying I disagree with most of your assessment in the post! Of course, the idea of a Cleric being "learned" or "persuasive" doesn't mean they can't be wise. One of my favorite aspects of Wisdom in 5E is being tied to Insight. The ability to look into others and understand something about them is very much a "priestly" thing IMO.

Obviously the meanings of these terms have changed through editions, but the ties to the prior editions remain in many ways. I think many older players would be up in arms if WotC made the shift to Charisma for Cleric.

FWIW, one of the things we tie to Charisma is conviction, belief in yourself, your god, your cause, etc. With this in mind Charisma could easily go to Clerics IMO, as well as Paladins and Warlocks.

So, currently in our 5E games we've shifted some of the casting classes around (bold indicates changes):

• Bard - Intelligence
• Cleric - Charisma
• Druid - Wisdom
• Paladin - Charisma
• Ranger - Wisdom
• Sorcerer - Constitution
• Warlock - Charisma
• Wizard - Intelligence

I imagine many people would gasp at Bard - Intelligence, however we treat bards as more eclectic in how they acquire and utilize magic. We see the class as strong even as a half-caster. We don't really see Charisma as the spellcasting ability for them.

Moving Sorcerer - Constitution is easily understood IME. And of course I mentioned the move for clerics above.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's pretty disheartening to see Fighter - a class defined in part by its adaptability to many circumstances - be thrown into the "Strong" bucket and locked out of tactics, of gishes, of archers or duelists.

Six classes each tied to an ability score could really just be one class with six versions when we're talking about any of the Core Four.

I didn't mind the 4E Fighter focus, but if you worry about that: Strength and Dexterity should always be important for any type of combat, unless maybe we're talking about firearms. Bows require strength to draw, and a sword must still hit the target, not just penetrate armor, skin or bone. So in this hypothetical system, just say that you roll the higher of Strength or Dexterity for any weapon attack.

Fighter (Strength)

• Archer (Secondary: Dex); Specializes in ranged weapons, good at singling out enemies
• Barbarian (Secondary: Con); Gains rages and tough even without armor and weapons
• Knight (Secondary: Wis): Mounted Combat, Heavy Armor, can force duels
• Man at Arms (Secondary: Int): Any weapon is deadly in the hand of a Man at Arms, easily switches weapons to utilize its perks
• Warlord (Secondary: Int or CHa); Inspires allies and coordinates the party

 

[Mephista]

I would go...
Paladin + Fighter for str/con
Rogue + Ranger for dex/wis
Wizard + bard for int/cha.

Cleric merge into pally, druid into ranger, monk into Rogue, artificer into Fighter, sorcerer and related psionics into bard. barb goes part to ranger, part to fighter. all remaining elemental and necrotic stuff into wizard

 

[Lanefan]

Hypothetical: you have been put in charge of a new D&D PHB, but you have a mandate: there shall be but 6 core classes, each tied to one of the 6 Ability Scores (ie that's their "prime stat"). You are allowed to create however many subclasses that will fit in the book, but you MUST maintain 6 core focused on individual stats.

What are your 6? What subclasses do you include?

Mine with some subclass notes:

STR: Fighter. Subclasses focused on weapon mastery versus heavy armor versus niche archetypes (like a mounted knight).

DEX: Rogue. Subclasses include both thief things and scouty things.

CON: Ranger but really "survivalist". I would tie both the beast master and the berserker to this class, plus maybe a Tarzan variant.

INT: Wizard. Instead of schools, the Subclasses would focus on fictional and literary archetypes, from Gandalf to Harry Potter to Dresden.

WIS: "Cleric" though I hate the term. "Channeler" maybe? Anyway, this class covers clerics, druids, warlocks and paladins in its archetypes. If you get your powers from some otherworldly entity, this is your class.

CHA: Sorcerer. If you power comes from within, this is your class. Bards would be a sorcerer subclass, not wizard, and I might be inclined to warrior Monks into this space. The problem is Charisma is really wonky as a stat and simultaneously covers guile and straight up id. It's a tough one. Maybe the monk is a Con subclass?

Anyway, what would you do?

Similar to you except replace Sorcerer with Bard and not all would have sub-classes

So:
STR = Fighter (subs: Cavalier, Swashbuckler)
DEX = Rogue (subs: Monk, Assassin)
CON = Ranger
INT = Wizard (subs: [Illusionist or Psion], Necromancer)
WIS = Cleric (subs: Druid, [Paladin or War Cleric])
CHA = Bard (sub: Tactician*)

Note that some classes - e.g. Warlock, Barbarian, Sorcerer - disappear; this is intentional.

* - Tactician could be kind of a Warlord variant without the elements that make Warlord awful such as ranged (or any!) healing, that has some minor magical battlefield effects based on being able to hear its voice, using the same sonic-magic idea as the Bard.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What is really interesting to me in this thread is how people apply specific caster classes to different stats than 5E or previous editions tie them to.

This is a fascinating thread because it really seems like, if we had our druthers, virtually all of us would make big changes to the way the D&D class system is structured and what attributes are associated with classes - especially casters! I'm not saying that in some "D&D sux and needs 2 change!" way, because we all clearly have pretty different ideas about it, but it surprised me.

Also I am shocked with myself because I just reduced the number of classes significantly and was happy with the result! I always thought I was a maximalist!

 

[ezo]

Also I am shocked with myself because I just reduced the number of classes significantly and was happy with the result! I always thought I was a maximalist!

Sometimes less is more.