Essential Classes: A Thought Experiment

[Rossbert]

After Xanathar's came out I was able to put my finger on something that was bothering me about some classes/subclasses. It was starting to feel like some were getting very heavily into the design space of others. With this thought I starting thinking about what made up the essential nature of various classes, roles, and archetypes and what it would look like to pare things down a little. I thought it was time to open up the idea and see if anyone else sees any of that themselves and what others might think of a slightly more reductionist approach to the classes.

As a disclaimer, this whole concept requires certain optional rules, like multiclassing and feats, and as such drifts from the design philosophy of simplicity and may require some system mastery. It also may attack traditional staples of the game.

The first thing I noticed were the options that looked like they wanted to be multiclass characters without actually multiclassing. The big ones for me immediately are Arcane Trickster, Bladesinger, College of Swords, Eldritch Knight and to a further extent Paladin and Ranger.

The second category for me are concepts that are very similar in flavor, if not mechanics. The big one (and this is controversial in my local gaming group) is that cleric and warlock boil down to someone who derives power from some sort of powerful being, often in exchange for service or devotion (though I also enjoy trickery and mischief as causes).

The third category is the reverse of the second, groupings of similar mechanics but are divided on flavor. If I mention an unarmored warrior with great maneuverability and an unusual mechanic to augment their conventional attack, do you first think of a barbarian or a monk? On top of that one I tend to think of sorcerer and wizard in 5e not having a lot to separate themselves mechanically.

My early look at the current classes had these results:

Barbarian - Fold it into a superclass with the monk, make rage a subclass feature with the fast movement, unarmored AC and related the core featues.

Bard - On the fence, I could see it falling into a multiclass fighter/cleric depending on domains (see below), but it may be more trouble than it is worth to separate inspiration as a mechanic for a particular domain.

Cleric - Oh boy. I fold this one into warlock hard. Not sure if it should keep the weird short rest spell slots or keep the cleric conventional spell casting. The part I am fairly confident on is that invocations are a great model for domain abilities, create a long list of them and make sure most of them go with a particular domain (or a couple) and create a fairly modular caster where your choice of patron (deity) feels like it really matters.

Druid - On the fence a little, I could see it falling into a properly domained cleric, but given other changes (see ranger), I think it may have enough nature and shapechange stuff to keep it on its own, it will have a lot more of the ranger abilities relating to knowledge and manuevering in the wild, tracking, etc.

Fighter - A staple, they need to stay if only as a baseline for other things to be judged against. Fighter will probably get some of the other subclasses and is a multiclassing essential for some concepts. Eldritch knight goes away and becomes a fighter/caster multiclass.

Monk - See barbarian. Folding those two classes together, the monk specific stuff becoming subclassed. The weirder subclasses (like four elements) probably becomes a multiclass.

Paladin - Gone entirely. Base concept is a fighter/cleric. Some of the iconic paladin abilities like smite and grace can become domain "invocations"

Ranger - Just like paladin the base concept feels like a multiclass. Move some of the typical ranger abilities into druid and some of the more scouty type abilities into rogue. Maybe make favored enemy a feat, since it doesn't feel like a fit for druid.

Rogue - Another one that stays as a solid baseline. It will pick up some ranger scout/track traits and probably be a frequent piece in multiclass builds. If someone really wanted to fold it into fighter I'd understand, but it seems like more trouble than it is worth. Arcane trickster becomes a rogue/caster of some sort.

Sorcerer - Either wizard gets a sorcerer variant without a book and subclasses start at level 1 or sorcerer gets a wizard variant that uses a spellbook.

Warlock - Folded into cleric (see above), especially now that divine and arcane kinds of magic have basically nothing to distinguish them anymore.

Wizard - Either a sorcerer subclass or the master class for sorcerer. Whichever it is may get some of the warlock design space too.


As I mentioned, just something I am playing with and definitely not fully fleshed out. I am curious if anyone has any interesting approaches.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The four base classes are Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. You can create any of the others thematically using those four and backgrounds / roleplaying.

The reason we have the other eight is simply to solidify and standardize certain thematic tropes that are popular and well-known, and while doing so give them some different mechanics that might assist in conveying those tropes better. But none of these eight classes are really necessary. There's a reason why we have the Basic Rules after all.

 

[Yaarel]

Really, there are only Fighter and Wizard.

The Rogue is simply a Dexterity Fighter.

And the Cleric is simply a Fighter/Wizard.

 

[Yaarel]

The best way to build classes is a feat-based design approach, that allows one to mix-and-match whichever features a player wants the character to have.

It works well to have spells work this way too, and yields more thematic mages who select various magical abilities as feats.

 

[77IM]

I'm convinced this is an unsolvable problem. Here's my theory as to why:

A class shoehorns your character into a genre archetype. BUT:

a) Some players don't want to be shoehorned. They want their imagination to soar free! Evidence: The incredible abundance of classless RPGs, including many that (still!) use "No classes!" as a selling point. The existence of multiclassing, feats, hybrid-subclasses, and reflavoring (all of which weakens the class-as-archetype, turning it into class-as-bundle-of-mechanics).

b) Some players want everybody to be shoehorned. They want traditional-fantasy races and PCs that stay squarely in their niche. Evidence: The thread on this forum about "Multiclassing objections: rules vs. fluff." All the people who want to get back to just the basic 4 classes and basic 4 races (sometimes with Elf, Dwarf and Halfling as classes!).

...So the 5e rules try to land somewhere in the middle in an effort to appeal to both groups. And also to appeal to those players who are somewhere in the middle: many players want a setting with strong archetypes, but they want for themselves to step outside those archetypes. (You can't "play against type" unless there are types.)

Now, I say this is an "unsolvable problem" in the context of general D&D for a broad audience. You might find an organization of classes that really appeals to you, personally. So the problem could be "solved" for the very specific case of your group at your table.

 

[MoonSong]

[MENTION=6922357]Rossbert[/MENTION] -first of all I like that name for some reason, cool n_n - I get what you want.

On Bard, maybe have the Bard be a cleric/warlock option? with inspiration and even some weapons being handled through invocations. While there, maybe you could make Channel Divinity/Inspiration come from the same pool?

On the Wizard/Sorcerer thing, I suggest you maybe make Wizard a subclass of Sorcerer instead of the other way around. From where I'm seeing it, a Sorcerer is more basal/primitive as an archetype and from a mechanical point of view. Sorcerer is "just knows magic" with subclasses explaining where that magic came from, while the wizard is more "studies magic", with subclasses marking the specialization or a quirk of the way the wizard studied magic. Also scribing and preparing spells is mechanically more complex than just knowing and casting spells -though it is more powerful-.

 

[tglassy]

I've often thought like this, where we could simply have Fighters, Rogues and Wizards, and everything else keys off them.

If you want to be able to fight, you have to be a fighter. They're the only ones with proficiency in Martial Weapons and Heavy Armor (and maybe medium), and the only way to get "Extra Attack." Make "Unarmored" a Feat, where you can select a secondary stat to add to your Dex bonus when calculating your AC, be it Constitution, Wisdom, Intelligence or even Charisma. Only Fighters can get this feat, so only they can go Unarmored and still have a beastly AC. But the ability to choose which stat it keys off of makes one feat work for a Barbarian type, who can simply shrug off the hits that hit him, the Monk type who is more observant and can dodge them easier, the Sherlock Holmes type who is so intelligent they know where the blows will land and therefore can not be there when they do, and the Jack Sparrow type who can either charm you or frustrate you so much you usually miss. Or deceive you in some way, I guess, thus causing you to miss. Drunken master, anyone?

For Rogues, They get Sneak Attacks and all the skillz. You wanna be a skill monkey, you gotta take some Rogue. They're the ones with the scouting, the evasions, the stealthing and such. All the sneaky, dextrous things as well as the persuasive, charismatic things and the perceptive, wisdomy things.

For Wizards, I would switch them back to Magic Users, and have a Feat you choose, sort of like an Archetype, at Level 1 that determined which stat you keyed your spells off of: Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma. Go Int, you get a spell book and you're a bookish, learned Wizard. The power isn't yours, you are merely learning how to manipulate it. Go Wisdom and you're channeling your power from an outside force, be it a Deity, Nature, or some other person (Note, the power itself is not yours, you are channeling it from somewhere else). Go Charisma and you are doing the magic innately, be it from your bloodline or bestowed upon you by a higher power, such as a deity, a higher power or powerful being (The difference is, the power is yours, not channeled from somewhere else).

Each Magic User archetype can have major effects on the class, including what spell lists they are able to choose spells from, but the spell mechanic would be the same for all of them. So in this, I would wrap up the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard and Sorcerer.

Now Multiclassing would be an integral part of character creation. I would say that your starting class would be your main class, and certain features would be obtainable only by someone who started in that class, such as third and fourth attacks for fighters or being a full castor for Magic Users. But, you are able to take a secondary class, perhaps by sacrificing a Feat, as with the new Pathfinder, or something to that effect. Effectively, what this would do is allow you access to some of the basic features of the second class, allowing you to take Feats that require that class. Perhaps there would be a Multiclass Feat. You could take it twice, to make a triple class, if you like. the Fighter/Rogue/Magic User, or Fighter/Mage/Thief of old.

In fact, I'd say you could take the feat twice, choosing to either take the third class, which you didn't chose before, or strengthening your second class further.

For example, I'm a fighter, at level 2 I forgo my class feature and grab "Magic User-Wizard" as a multiclass feat. Because I only have one Magic User Multiclass Feat, I am a 1/3rd caster and can only cast cantrips until I get to lvl 3, where I can start casting lvl 1 spells. At level 3 (or sometime thereafter), I can take the Multiclass Feat again, and can either choose Rogue, where I get access to sneak attack or skillz, or I can choose "Magic User - Wizard" again, making myself a half caster. Keying my magic off Wisdom could make me a Paladin, Int could make me the Eldridge Knight, and Charisma could be either a Warlock Pact or Innate Magic of a Sorcerer ingrained in my Fighter. But either way, it frees me up to choose where that magic comes from.

With this, every archetype can be represented.

If you want a Barbarian, you take Fighter with Unarmored keying off Constitution and taking a "Rage" feat only granted to fighters. Take some Rogue skills for outdoors survival, and maybe some Magic User keying off of Wisdom if you want to have a connection with either ancestors or nature. Key everything off Strength or Constitution, and take Feats that grant advantage to these things, and you're set.

Bards are the Triple Class. Depending on what kind of Bard you want to play, you'd pick a different class to start with. Blades start as fighters, normal bards start as Magic Users keying off charisma, flavoring it that their magic is in their songs, or words. Or if you're more of a Skill Monkey, start with Rogue and grab the other two at levels 2 and 3, keeping in mind that only those who start with Magic User will be full casters.

Clerics are just Magic Users keying off Wisdom, flavored that their power is channeled from a God. Multiclass Fighter for the armor and weapons proficiencies, and you're golden.

Druids are full on Magic Users keying off Wisdom, flavored that their power is channeled from Nature. Make Wild Shape either a Feat or a Spell.

Fighters are Fighters all the way, with maybe one multiclass in Rogue or Magic User to add versatility.

Monks are Dextrous Fighters with Unarmored keying off Wisdom, with Rogue multiclass, or maybe Magic User keying off Wisdom or something if you really want Ki powers.

Paladin are Fighters with two multiclass Feats in Magic User keying off Wisdom or Charisma, depending on how you see it. Basically the opposite of Clerics.

Rangers would be Rogues with two Multiclass feats in Magic User, or if you don't like Rangers to use magic, Rogues with two Fighter multiclass feats.

Rogues are Rogues, with maybe some Fighter or Magic User thrown in for fun.

Sorcerers are easy. Magic Users keying off Charisma, flavored as in born power.

Warlocks are a little trickier, but you can either have them be Magic Users keying off of Wisdom, if you see them as channeling their patron's power, or as I see it, it would be keyed off one of the other two stats as they are either learning the power (int), or being granted the power (cha), instead of channeling it (wis). Either way, multiclass Rogue or Fighter for Hexblades and/or skills.

And Wizards are Magic Users keying off Int, with either some fighter or rogue multi classed in for kicks and giggles, if that's what you want.



But there are numerous other archetypes, as well. With this system, Flavor and Fluff is all up to you. Pathfinder 2 is doing something similar, but I still think it's too complicated. Yeah, fluff in a class can be cool, I mean being a Warlock who made a pact with a Great Old One sounds awesome, but in the end, it's just mechanics, and I can fluff that however I want. My Great Old One is a Space Hamster, and I channel his power by going into a rage. Even though I'm a Ranger. Go figure.

Being allowed to pick which stat things key off of frees up the player to craft their character how they want, eliminating builds that are too MAD.

 

[Horwath]

Really, there are only Fighter and Wizard.

The Rogue is simply a Dexterity Fighter.

And the Cleric is simply a Fighter/Wizard.

We could have 4 classes actually. By magical aptitude:


Martials, no spell casting

1/3rd casters; like current El.knight, arc.trickster,

1/2 casters; rangers, paladins

We could also add 2/3rd casters like bards in 3.5e with new spell levels coming every 3 levels.(1,4,7,10,13,16,19)

Full casters: wizard, cleric etc...

 

[Yaarel]

We could have 4 classes actually. By magical aptitude:


Martials, no spell casting

1/3rd casters; like current El.knight, arc.trickster,

1/2 casters; rangers, paladins

We could also add 2/3rd casters like bards in 3.5e with new spell levels coming every 3 levels.(1,4,7,10,13,16,19)

Full casters: wizard, cleric etc...

In this case, it again seems simpler to have two classes: wizard and fighter.

Some players will only take levels in wizard.

Some players will only take levels in fighter.

Some players will dabble with a few levels in the other class.

Some players will want both classes about half-and-half.

 

[Gadget]

The first thing I noticed were the options that looked like they wanted to be multiclass characters without actually multiclassing. The big ones for me immediately are Arcane Trickster, Bladesinger, College of Swords, Eldritch Knight and to a further extent Paladin and Ranger.

To me, it is multi-classing that is the hack on top of a class based system that is more of a sore thumb; its trying to have your cake and eat it too. As a class based system, D&D has always been an package of abilities that grows with your character, almost the antithesis of point-buy, cost based build system. I don't think ala carte multiclass offers a satisfying resolution to this issue. Now 5e does have the issue of a lot of overlap between different archetype than ever before, as the classes listed above are all variations of a Gish-type concept. However, I would argue that the Paladin &--to a lesser extent--the Ranger, benefit greatly from having their own spell list and abilities tailored to their archetype and concept.

The second category for me are concepts that are very similar in flavor, if not mechanics. The big one (and this is controversial in my local gaming group) is that cleric and warlock boil down to someone who derives power from some sort of powerful being, often in exchange for service or devotion (though I also enjoy trickery and mischief as causes).

I would not categorize bargaining/selling your soul as "service or devotion", but IMHO the warlock has more overlap with the Sorcerer that hinders the concept of both classes.

Barbarian - Fold it into a superclass with the monk, make rage a subclass feature with the fast movement, unarmored AC and related the core featues.

A really can't see it. Monks are traditionally contemplative, wisdom focused classes that have a very different flavor and story than a traditional fantasy 'Barbarian'. If anything, a barbarian can be a fighter sub-class/background.

Most of the rest of these fall into a classic reductionist argument that could be reduced to one "Hero" class and NPCs. It is a spectrum that can be taken too far in either direction for most people. You can't have a (sub)class for every little thing under the sun, yet you also can't boil everything down to a couple of classes the 'cover' everything in a generic, flavorless way either. I find it interesting that 5e tries to temper this by having classes with sub-classes to cover (minor?) variations around the class, yet as evidenced by the Hexblade/blade'lock issue, the sub-classes can only do so much and sometimes you need more.