D&D (2024) 6e, how would you sort the classes/sub-classs?

[Lanefan]

Okay, my main goal would be to make it a little less magic-riffic.

So, classes and subclasses in BASE. (h/t [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] ) I would add that I would view subclasses as more differentiated than they are now, so my subclasses would be closer to "full" classes.

That's also what I was thinking - they're called sub-classes because they're in one of the core groups, but are in fact full freestanding classes.

And that only cleric-types and wizard-types get spells. Period.

Fine, but what of the Bard. Without quasi-magical sonic effects that make it more or less a caster, how can it be of much use along with being distinct enough to be its own class.

Fighter
- - Ranger (because history)
- - Knight (Because Cavaliers suck, and they are too close to paladins)
- - Barbarian (because Conan)
Cleric
- - Druid (because history)
- - Witch (something not as religious-y)
- - Battle Cleric (more mace than spell)
- - Priest (more spell than mace)
Wizard
- - Illusionist (the classic)
- - Warlock (the newbie)
- - Sorcerer (less bookie)
Thief
- - Assassin (history)
- - Bard (throw those bard-lovers a bone)
- - Monk (YES!)

In other words, stay with the core four.

As for your actual list, someone wanting to play a Paladin (yes, they're out there) could look at either a religious Knight or a War/Battle Cleric. I left Pallies in my list as I see them as quite distinct from a Knight/Cavalier archetype.

Your list is missing a light Fighter type - Swashbuckler, Archer, or similar. This has always been a rather glaring hole in the class lists, fillable only by multi-ing Fighter-Thief; and I really want to get rid of multiclassing if possible.

Barbarian should be renamed Berserker.

Witch should be renamed Shaman, and-or melded in with Druid. Also, if your Witch is non-religious does that mean Druids become Nature Clerics? If so, rename them as such.

I really want to see a Necromancer class alongside Illusionist.

I almost went with the Thief name as well, but stayed Rogue for clarity. Were it up to me, it'd be Thief.

Then, you can add psionics, alchemists, and other stuff in an expansion.

There's room for a Psionicist right from the start if done right, I think. It wouldn't fall under any of the core four groups.

Lanefan

 

[Guest 6801328]

There's room for a Psionicist right from the start if done right, I think. It wouldn't fall under any of the core four groups.

Or.....using the "template" idea, Psionicist could be a template you overlay on any class.

Agree with the comment that Barbarian should really be named Berserker. Then "Barbarian" should be another template, because you should be able to have Barbarian druids and rogues and bards etc.

 

[Thurmas]

The difficulty here is, with 5E, Wizards finally has a game mechanics formula that works, and is extremely popular. I think any proposal that doesn't keep the basic premises of 5E intact doesn't stand a chance. None of the past editions had the popularity of 5E, and when it comes down to it, D&D is a business. Wizards will continue to push the model that is working until it no longer works. All these ideas wishing for 4 core classes, or 2 classes, or free form leveling, or anything else that doesn't resemble 5E, doesn't stand a chance. It is just wishful thinking.

 

[cbwjm]

The difficulty here is, with 5E, Wizards finally has a game mechanics formula that works, and is extremely popular. I think any proposal that doesn't keep the basic premises of 5E intact doesn't stand a chance. None of the past editions had the popularity of 5E, and when it comes down to it, D&D is a business. Wizards will continue to push the model that is working until it no longer works. All these ideas wishing for 4 core classes, or 2 classes, or free form leveling, or anything else that doesn't resemble 5E, doesn't stand a chance. It is just wishful thinking.

The whole premise of this thread is wishful thinking. The original post is asking us how would we sort classes/subclasses, not how will WotC sort them in 6e. I'm find it interesting seeing how people would do things differently. Some of these ideas I think could be developed into a fun D&D clone.

 

[Thurmas]

The whole premise of this thread is wishful thinking. The original post is asking us how would we sort classes/subclasses, not how will WotC sort them in 6e. I'm find it interesting seeing how people would do things differently. Some of these ideas I think could be developed into a fun D&D clone.

I realize that. I just think this thread can go two drastically different directions. One where people present ideas that might happen, and one where literally anything goes, even if it would never see the light of day. I think two separate threads would serve it well.

 

[Thurmas]

This is what I would like to see presented in PHB 6.0 for classes. 4 Subclasses for each class. Mostly existing, a few new ones to fill gaps. I think I chose a pretty well rounded example of subclasses. I'd want the subclasses to bring more power and distinctness then they currently do, relying less on the main class for abilities. The subclasses presented don't have to bring their current abilities with them, just the theme they present. The only class I'd like to see added that I didn't include would be some kind of Arcane half caster, and maybe an Alchemist.

Barbarian:
Path of the Ancestral Guardian
Path of the Berserker
Path of the Storm Herald
Path of the Totem Warrior

Bard:
College of Glamour
College of Lore
College of Swords
College of Whispers

Cleric:
Grave Domain
Life Domain
Light Domain
Tempest Domain

Druid:
Circle of the Land
Circle of the Moon
Circle of the Summoner
Circle of the Treant

Fighter:
Battlemaster
Cavalier
Eldritch Knight
Warlord

Monk:
Way of the Four Elements
Way of the Kensei
Way of the Open Hand
Way of Shadow

Mystic:
Order of the Avatar
Order of the Awakened
Order of the Immortal
Order of the Soul Knife

Paladin:
Oath of the Crown
Oath of Devotion
Oath of Redemption
Oath of Vengence

Ranger:
Beastmaster
Hunter
Scout
Spell-less

Rogue:
Arcane Trickster
Assassin
Swashbuckler
Thief

Sorcerer:
Elementalist
Shadow Sorcerer
Storm Sorcerer
Wild Mage

Warlock:
Archfey
Celestial
Fiend
Great Old One

Wizard:
Enchanter
Illusionist
Necromancer
Warmage

 

[Lanefan]

Or.....using the "template" idea, Psionicist could be a template you overlay on any class.

Agree with the comment that Barbarian should really be named Berserker. Then "Barbarian" should be another template, because you should be able to have Barbarian druids and rogues and bards etc.

I've always maintained that Barbarian should be a sub-race of Human. This would also give the option for Barbarian Druids and rogues and what-have-you.

Cleric:
Grave Domain
Life Domain
Light Domain
Tempest Domain

Where's the War or Battle domain? Tempest sounds more like it wants to be a Weather Cleric (and wouldn't that fit better under Druid?)

Lanefan

 

[Thurmas]

Where's the War or Battle domain? Tempest sounds more like it wants to be a Weather Cleric (and wouldn't that fit better under Druid?)

Lanefan

It could certainly be switched out. I had to make compromises, especially with the Cleric and Wizard, due to the number of options they get. I went with Tempest because it still went with a punch stuff in the face approach, but War could just as easily go in there too. This was more proof of concept then anything. I'm sure there are many differing opinions on what would be included.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Someone gave this thread 1 star? This is just a fun thought exercise, and not one of those "EVERYTHING ABOUT 5E SUCKS!" threads. Gonna have to do my part to correct that rating then...

 

[Sacrosanct]

The whole premise of this thread is wishful thinking. The original post is asking us how would we sort classes/subclasses, not how will WotC sort them in 6e. I'm find it interesting seeing how people would do things differently. Some of these ideas I think could be developed into a fun D&D clone.

I realize that. I just think this thread can go two drastically different directions. One where people present ideas that might happen, and one where literally anything goes, even if it would never see the light of day. I think two separate threads would serve it well.

Yes, this thread is all wishful thinking. If we were to guess what WotC would really do with 6e, we'd have to realize that the scope of whatever new version of D&D comes next still has to identify as D&D. That means classes in a recognizable and familiar format. Which of course means all of us have unrealistic suggestions