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

Shiroiken said:

Thematically, almost every class are variations on the Core 4. Barbarian, Monk, and Warlord are all types of Fighters. Druids are Nature Clerics. Sorcerers and Warlocks are variants on the Wizard (the original magic user). Bards, Paladins, and Rangers are variants of Rogue/Wizard, Fighter/Cleric, and Fighter/Rogue/Cleric. Pretty much only the Artificer and Mystic are actual new themes, and even those are tenuous (not to mention neither is really appropriate for all campaign worlds).

Click to expand...

I don’t think monks are a variant of fighters. They are completely different. What makes a fighter a fighter? The ability to wear armor and use all weapons. Things monks can’t really do. I think monks are unique as much as any other class is.

Sacrosanct said:

I don’t think monks are a variant of fighters. They are completely different. What makes a fighter a fighter? The ability to wear armor and use all weapons. Things monks can’t really do. I think monks are unique as much as any other class is.

Click to expand...

Personally I think collapsing classes down is folly - but if you're starting down the path of "all classes are just subclasses of some core idea" then the monk could be viewed as a warrior who wears no armor and fights unarmed, a rogue is a warrior who wears light armor and uses sneaky tactics, a ranger is a warrior who wears light armor and focuses on ranged attacks and/or two weapon fighting and gets some nature spells, a barbarian is a warrior who wears light armor and gets a magic rage ability and a paladin is a warrior who gets to wear heavy armor and cast cleric spells. Under this perspective the traditional fighter is a warrior who wears heavy armor and is proficient in all weapons - the core idea of "warrior" crosses all of these classes, and creating a new class is just a matter of swapping some abilities for others. So all of these classes could be realized as subclasses of this overarching "warrior" class - it just takes sitting down with the mechanics and hammering them into shape to make it work.

I personally think that down this path lies madness. Take it to extremes and you end up with some kind of D&D inspired version of GURPS or Champions. But take it in moderation and there's always going to be one more set of classes you can collapse together and suddenly my joke about only having one class named "Adventurer" and everything else is a subclass of it starts to sound like a workable approach.

Sacrosanct said:

I don’t think monks are a variant of fighters. They are completely different. What makes a fighter a fighter? The ability to wear armor and use all weapons. Things monks can’t really do. I think monks are unique as much as any other class is.

Click to expand...

Is it that monks can't use weapons or armor? Or that they don't? IIRC, the original fighting monks were trained by soldiers who had converted; and even 5E allows a monk to use weapons as proficiently as they fight unarmed.

There's no reason why you couldn't have monk as a sub-class of fighter, as long they had a sub-class ability which gave them a good reason to eschew heavy armor. The main gimmick of both concepts is that you're strong, and you're tough, and you hit dudes in melee combat.

I voted only the core four. In fact, you only need two classes: one with spellcasting and one without it, and everything else could be done using multiclass and subclasses. I don't believe that would be an improvement of the game, though. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Saelorn said:

Is it that monks can't use weapons or armor? Or that they don't? IIRC, the original fighting monks were trained by soldiers who had converted; and even 5E allows a monk to use weapons as proficiently as they fight unarmed.

There's no reason why you couldn't have monk as a sub-class of fighter, as long they had a sub-class ability which gave them a good reason to eschew heavy armor. The main gimmick of both concepts is that you're strong, and you're tough, and you hit dudes in melee combat.

Click to expand...

For all that is holy, please don’t start the can’t vs don’t argument. There is a whole Druid thread about that, and I’m still suffering the SAN loss

Shiroiken said:

Thematically, almost every class are variations on the Core 4. Barbarian, Monk, and Warlord are all types of Fighters. Druids are Nature Clerics. Sorcerers and Warlocks are variants on the Wizard (the original magic user). Bards, Paladins, and Rangers are variants of Rogue/Wizard, Fighter/Cleric, and Fighter/Rogue/Cleric. Pretty much only the Artificer and Mystic are actual new themes, and even those are tenuous (not to mention neither is really appropriate for all campaign worlds).

Click to expand...

Or, to dice it differently: The Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue & Warlord are all Warrior classes. The Cleric, Paladin, Druid, and Ranger are all Religious classes. The Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer and Artificer are all Magic-using classes.
And, of course, the Psion is a science-fiction class.

Sacrosanct said:

I don’t think monks are a variant of fighters. They are completely different. What makes a fighter a fighter?

Click to expand...

Martial skill, in his case, proficiency (and beyond) with weapons, shields, & armor - mostly, arms & armor of a certain place & time.

What makes a Monk a Monk? Illuminating manuscripts, praying multiple times a day, vows of celibacy and poverty... Oh, no, wait, wrong Monk, that'd be a Monk from the same place & time as the Fighter's armor & weapons, sorry.
I meant: Martial skill, in his case, proficiency in a tight group of weapons not proscribed for common people in a certain time & place, and a fighting style employing those weapons and various unarmed techniques often referred to as "Martial Arts."

Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Warlock.

Of the core 4, in an 8 class game, I’d only add the Rogue. The other would be the Warlord.

IMO the Fighter isn’t a concept literally at all. Cleric is a Paladin with a Priest background. Wizard is a Tome Warlock or elementalist Druid. The fighter doesn’t even have that sort of cache, AFAIC. It exists entirely by tradition.

The only way Id include a fighter in a class limited game is if there are only the Warrior, Sorcerer (my preference for a generic name for a magic user), and Expert.

Core 4 + monk. I cast my extra vote for bard, but it could have gone to psionicist or druid (or artificer if it had been listed as alchemist instead).

Tony Vargas said:

Or, to dice it differently: The Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue & Warlord are all Warrior classes. The Cleric, Paladin, Druid, and Ranger are all Religious classes. The Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer and Artificer are all Magic-using classes.
And, of course, the Psion is a science-fiction class.


Martial skill, in his case, proficiency (and beyond) with weapons, shields, & armor - mostly, arms & armor of a certain place & time.

What makes a Monk a Monk? Illuminating manuscripts, praying multiple times a day, vows of celibacy and poverty... Oh, no, wait, wrong Monk, that'd be a Monk from the same place & time as the Fighter's armor & weapons, sorry.
I meant: Martial skill, in his case, proficiency in a tight group of weapons not proscribed for common people in a certain time & place, and a fighting style employing those weapons and various unarmed techniques often referred to as "Martial Arts."

Click to expand...

The fighter doesn’t exist, and the monk is an esoteric mystic warrior.

doctorbadwolf said:

The fighter doesn’t exist, and the monk is an esoteric mystic warrior.

Click to expand...

Seriously even the “man at arms” is just a lower level name for the warlord.