D&D 5E [poll] Which classes should be core

Yaarel · Jul 4, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
You can vote for fewer. If we're talking redundancy, certainly and option.

Maybe:

One martial.
One Arcane.
One Divine.
One Psionic.
Maybe, one Nature (if you consider it separate from divine).

Worldly (Martial)
Arcane
Void (Shadow)
Divine

Matter (Elemental)
Life (Primal)
Mind (Psionic)
Force (Universal)

Arilyn · Jul 4, 2019

Personally, I believe that a class based system like D&D, should have, you know, classes. I don't get the reasoning behind paring them all down to just three or four. Sure, I can build a fighter, give him some outdoorsy skills, and call him a ranger, but he's not going to have cool ranger abilities. Class based games give us a menu system with features created by the designers. This puts some limits on my imagination, therefore, the more choices I have, the more likely I will be able to create a unique character, or one closer to what I'm picturing. It opens up the game to more possibilities. It's easier to play with time periods, moods or other genres. As a GM, it's far easier to cut down on unwanted classes, because they don't fit the campaign, than to have to create new ones to fill up a "weird west" genre, for example. If your game suits a more down to earth feel, then you can remove the gunslingers, psychics, alchemists and puppeteers. But they are there for when games are more free wheeling, or have a specific feel.

On top of all this, D&D is kind of a crazy mash up of oddball rules, an ecology that makes no sense, with monsters everywhere and a strangely democratic medieval setting, where peasants are free to wander away from their responsibilities to become adventurers. Rangers that are more than skilled outdoorsy fighters, monks, New Age druids, dragonborn paladins, halfling barbarians, artificers, half-elf investigators...sure, why not?

bedir than · Jul 4, 2019

The Fighter doesn't exist, it's just a Wizard that self-nerfs

DND_Reborn · Jul 4, 2019

I am sure someone mentioned this but I don't have time to read through the thread:

So, big surprise, there aren't 6 core classes, there are 4. And really, there are 2 IMO but anyway... there it is.

Blue · Jul 4, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
You can vote for fewer. If we're talking redundancy, certainly and option.

Maybe:

One martial.
One Arcane.
One Divine.
One Psionic.
Maybe, one Nature (if you consider it separate from divine).

I did 3 martial - none of them the (boring) fighter. Each has it's own niche and specialty. And then others.

I think that the fighter should be the default, and that one martial enough variation to balance multiple casters types, are both traps.

Tony Vargas · Jul 4, 2019

Arilyn said:
Sure, I can build a fighter, give him some outdoorsy skills, and call him a ranger, but he's not going to have cool ranger abilities.

Well, yeah, he's a fighter, and can't have nice things.

. As a GM, it's far easier to cut down on unwanted classes, because they don't fit the campaign, than to have to create new ones

As much as I like the theoretical elegance of a D&D with few classes - and the actual elegance of classless systems - I have to acknowledge that point.
Even as an inveterate rules-tinkerer, even at the height of my hubris, I rarely designed whole classes from scratch. It can be quite the undertaking.

Whereas, as long as you're not using MCing, and don't cut the last practical support class, trimming unwanted classes is pretty eaay.

Arilyn · Jul 4, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Well, yeah, he's a fighter, and can't have nice things.

As much as I like the theoretical elegance of a D&D with few classes - and the actual elegance of classless systems - I have to acknowledge that point.
Even as an inveterate rules-tinkerer, even at the height of my hubris, I rarely designed whole classes from scratch. It can be quite the undertaking.

Whereas, as long as you're not using MCing, and don't cut the last practical support class, trimming unwanted classes is pretty eaay.

Fighters get lots of nice things, but rangers want their own ranger nice things.

I like classless systems too. They actually make more sense, but if you have a class system, then there should be a wide choice, to counter the necessary restrictions which come with classes.

doctorbadwolf · Jul 4, 2019

Arilyn said:
Fighters get lots of nice things, but rangers want their own ranger nice things.

I like classless systems too. They actually make more sense, but if you have a class system, then there should be a wide choice, to counter the necessary restrictions which come with classes.

Exactly. If you’re making a game where character advancement is on rails, at least give me many rails to choose from.

Ratskinner · Jul 4, 2019

I only voted for the old-timey 4. I think a lot of the subclasses in 5e are pretty weak WRT differentiation and justification. If you're going to have a game where each class takes multiple pages and are this complicated, then I would go with:

Fighter: Barbarian*, Paladin, Ranger, Warrior (maneuvers and specialization), Eldritch Knight, maybe Warlord*.
Magic-User: Wizard, Cleric*, Psionicist, Warlock, Sorcerer. Specialists*, Druid* (shapeshifter)
Rogue: Thief, Scout, Swashbuckler (a little more fight-y), Arcane Trickster, Assassin*

Each major class would feature one special mechanic. (Magic Users use spells, Rogues key off of skills, and Fighters can have battle dice or maneuver dice or something.)
For example, all fighters would gain maneuver dice as they advance, but the subclasses would change or provide the method that you use them:
Barbarians can use them to power rages,
Paladins and Rangers would have special suites of abilities to spend them on.
Warrriors get more and have a wide selection of maneuvers
Eldritch Knights can spend them to a) activate a small list of magical abilities or b) cast spells. (dunno which I prefer.)

* subclasses that I'm not sure warrant it. Possibly could be wrapped into a feat, spell suites, background, or other "rider" mechanic.
Barbarian: could rages be a maneuver? I think probably.
Warlord: ditto most Warlord things (except see the next one)
Cleric: So...he's a wizard who can heal and wear armor...crazy thought. Take healing out of class magic and make it a feat so that any party or anyone could be "the healer". Then a cleric is just an armored wizard...so reduce his spell set.
Specialists: feats, or even better...make the specialist feats work for anyone, like Healer.
Druid: Shapeshifting could just be a suite of spells...
Assassin: I could see reducing it to a feat or two....

On the other hand, if D&D were to re-simplify to the point where you could give each class a reasonable single-page character sheet again...like Blades in the Dark or any number of other games, then I say go nuts.

Paul Smart · Jul 4, 2019

This is an interesting intellectual exercise. I was originally going to go for the core 4, but after thinking about it went with the following:

Warrior - The martial class. Uses weapons and armour.
Subclasses: Soldier, Barbarian, Ranger

Mage - The magic class. Uses Arcane Magic.
Subclasses: Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard

Cleric - The faith class. Uses Divine magic.
Subclasses: Druid, Priest

Artificer - The technology class. Uses tools
Subclasses: Rogue, Alchemist, Engineer

Mystic / Psionic - The mind magic class. Uses internal power
Subclass: Monk, Psion, Psy Warrior

Leader - The leader class. Uses skill and knowledge
Subclasses: Officer, Sergeant, Warlord

I would add a 7th class

Gish - The magic warrior class. Combines magic and martial might
Subclasses: Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Paladin, Arcane Trickster